CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mars 2006

.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. 84 March 2006 Saday v. Turkey - 32458/96 Judgment 30.3.2006 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for contempt of court of an accused for the terms of his pleadings while defending himself: violation   Facts : In criminal proceedings against him before a national security court, the applicant argued his own case. After reading out his speech before the court, he was convicted of contempt of court. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, including two months in solitary confinement, the maximum penalty laid down in the legislation for that offence. The applicant served his two months in solitary confinement and the national security court decided to stay execution of the remaining four months. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Law : Article 10 – The applicant’s conviction for contempt of court had pursued the legitimate aim of “maintaining the authority of the judiciary”. As to whether it had been necessary in a democratic society, the remarks made by the applicant in his speech had been particularly acerbic, lending the speech a very hostile tone. The applicant could have challenged the composition or operation of the security court without making a personal attack on the judges who made it up. The seriousness and sweeping nature of the allegations and the tone employed were liable to undermine the authority of the judiciary by creating an atmosphere of uncertainty inimical to the proper administration of justice. Given the remarks made by the applicant, which constituted a direct attack on the dignity of the judges, the national security court could therefore reasonably have deemed it necessary to impose a penalty. However, the applicant had received the maximum penalty allowed by law. The length and severity of the sentence he served, namely two months’ solitary confinement, appeared disproportionate to the aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant specified sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   © 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