CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 juillet 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110 July 2008 Yılmaz et Kılıç v. Turkey - 68514/01 Judgment 17.7.2008 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of demonstrators for chanting slogans supporting an illegal organisation: violation   Facts : At the material time the two applicants were members of Hadep (the People’s Democratic Party). Both were arrested following demonstrations held to protest against the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, former leader of the illegal armed organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The applicants were each sentenced by the National Security Court to about four years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. Law : Rejection of the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion – The applicants were accused of having facilitated the activities of an armed group. The offence had consisted mainly in their having taken part in a demonstration in the course of which they had chanted slogans in favour of the organisation concerned. The applicants had naturally based their defence on that charge, rejecting the characterisation of the facts of the case and the establishment of the facts as such. The first applicant could not be blamed for not having relied on his right to freedom of expression when he had in fact been charged with facilitating the activities of an armed group, precisely for expressing his views as he did. To have done otherwise would have required him to accept the charges, drawing him into a vicious circle that would have deprived him of the protection of the Convention. Moreover, the National Security Court, of its own motion, had evoked the right to freedom of expression in substance. Lastly, both the first applicant and the two applicants’ counsel could be considered, in the particular circumstances of the case, to have raised the right to freedom of expression. Merits :According to the National Security Court’s judgment the applicants’ conviction had been based solely on their participation in a protest demonstration against the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan and on the support they had voiced for him and for an illegal organisation. However, in order to establish whether or not there had been interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, there was no need to dwell on the classification of the offence by the domestic courts. As the evidence on the strength of which the applicants had been convicted consisted solely of forms of expression, there had been interference. The Government’s preliminary objection concerning victim status was therefore rejected. The Court confined itself to examining whether the applicants’ conviction was compatible with Article 10 of the Convention.The impugned interference had been provided for by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security and preventing disorder. The demonstrations had not been violent. Some of the slogans chanted had had particularly violent connotations, but it had not been established that these had been chanted by the applicants themselves. Therefore, even if the national authorities’ interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression might have been justified by their concern to prevent disorder, especially in the particularly tense political climate that reigned in the country at the time, the punishment inflicted on the applicants, namely almost four years’ imprisonment, had been manifestly disproportionate in its nature and severity to the legitimate aim pursued in their conviction. The domestic courts had gone beyond what would have amounted to a necessary restriction to the applicants’ freedom of expression. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes