CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 janvier 2011

.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. 137 January 2011 Aydin v. Germany - 16637/07 Judgment 27.1.2011 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of supporter of a banned organisation for contravening the ban: no violation   Facts – In 1993 the German authorities imposed a ban on the activities of the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK). In 2001 the PKK launched a large-scale campaign urging its supporters to demand that the ban be lifted. Approximately 100,000 declarations were submitted to the authorities in this context. The applicant organised the collection of signatures in Berlin. She also signed a declaration herself. The declaration contained the following statement: “I further declare that I do not acknowledge this ban and assume all responsibility arising therefrom.” She was subsequently convicted of contravening the ban imposed on the association’s activity and sentenced to 150   daily fines of EUR   8 each. The domestic courts interpreted her statement as implying that she had expressed her commitment not to abide by the ban in the future and to provide the PKK with security for planning future unlawful activities. They further held that the declaration was not covered by the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, since she had not confined herself to claiming freedom and self-determination for the Kurdish people and demanding that the ban be lifted. They also considered that the campaign had been organised by the PKK in order to hamper the prosecution of breaches of the ban by overburdening the public-prosecution service with a large number of criminal proceedings. This was demonstrated by the fact that the applicant and the other campaigners had not addressed themselves to the Federal Interior Ministry, which would have been competent to lift the ban, but had submitted a huge number of signed declarations to the public prosecutor’s office. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated. Law – Article 10: The applicant’s conviction for lending support to an illegal organisation had constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression. The interference was based on the Law on Associations and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting order and safety. The penalty imposed on the applicant had been intended to ensure that the ban on the PKK’s activities was respected. A ban imposed on an organisation would be ineffective if its followers were free to pursue the banned organisation’s activities in practice. The domestic courts had expressly acknowledged the applicant’s right to call for the ban to be lifted and to publicly apply to a competent authority to that end. She could therefore have avoided criminal prosecution. The courts had thoroughly examined the content of the declaration at issue in the context of the PKK’s campaign and taken into account the fact that the applicant had contravened the ban in a separate way by making a donation to a sub-organisation of the PKK which had also been subject to a ban. The sanction imposed on her did not appear disproportionate. The courts had therefore sufficiently taken into consideration the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in the course of the criminal proceedings against her. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one).   © 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