CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 septembre 2005

.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. 78 September 2005 İ.A. v. Turkey - 42571/98 Judgment 13.9.2005 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of a publisher sentenced to pay a fine for having published a novel insulting the Muslim religion: no violation   Facts : The applicant, the owner and managing director of a publishing company, published 2,000 copies of a book which addressed theological and philosophical issues in a novelistic style. The Istanbul public prosecutor charged the applicant with insulting “God, the Religion, the Prophet and the Holy Book” through the publication. The court of first instance sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine, and immediately commuted the prison sentence to a small fine. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, which upheld the judgment. Law : Article 10 – It was not disputed that the applicant’s conviction had amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting morals and the rights of others. As to deciding whether the interference had been necessary, this involved weighing up the conflicting interests relating to the exercise of two fundamental freedoms, namely the applicant’s right to impart his ideas on religion, on the one hand, and the right of others to respect for their freedom of thought, conscience and religion, on the other. Certain passages in the novel in question had attacked the Prophet Muhammad in an abusive manner. Therefore, the measure at issue had been intended to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims and could reasonably be regarded as meeting a “pressing social need”. In addition, the authorities had not exceeded their margin of appreciation, and the reasons given by the domestic courts to justify the measure taken against the applicant had been relevant and sufficient. As to whether the conviction had been proportionate, the Court noted that the national courts had not seized the book in question, and that the small fine imposed appeared to be proportionate to the aims pursued. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © 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