CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 2010

.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. 131 June 2010 Sapan v. Turkey - 44102/04 Judgment 8.6.2010 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Seizure of book for almost two years and eight months on basis of unreasoned judicial decisions: violation   Facts – The applicant is the owner of a publishing house which published a book in 2001 analysing the emergence of stardom as a phenomenon in Turkey and studying a well-known pop singer there. Considering that the book adversely affected his image and his personality rights, the singer applied for and obtained a court order for its seizure and a ban on its distribution. He later brought an action for damages against the applicant and the book’s author before the same court. The applicant applied three times for the seizure order to be lifted, but the court dismissed his applications, without giving reasons. In May 2004 the court finally rejected the singer’s claim for damages and lifted the seizure order on the book. In 2005, however, the Court of Cassation set that judgment aside, considering that the book had infringed the singer’s personality rights. The proceedings are still ongoing in the Turkish courts. Law – Article 10: the seizure of the book had amounted to interference with the applicant’s enjoyment of his right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law for the purpose of protecting the rights of others. The Court noted that the book was a partial reproduction of a doctoral thesis, and emphasised the importance of academic freedom. Through the example of the singer and using scientific methods, the author had analysed the star phenomenon and its appearance in Turkey, so the book could not be likened to the type of material published in the tabloid press and gossip magazines, which was generally aimed at satisfying the curiosity of a certain type of reader about the strictly private lives of celebrities. Furthermore, all the photographs used to illustrate the book were ones which had already been published, and for which the singer had posed. The court had ordered the seizure on the ground that the book infringed the singer’s personality rights. It had referred to certain passages from the book and relied on the law, but had adopted the complainant’s arguments and failed to give reasons for its decision. In addition, it had rejected three applications to have the ban lifted, without giving reasons. So, in spite of expert reports produced in the meantime in the applicant’s favour, the ban on the book had remained in place for nearly two years and eight months, until the May 2004 decision on the merits. The court could thus not be said to have taken the trouble to examine in detail the criteria to be taken into consideration in striking a fair balance between the rights in issue, namely, the right to freedom to communicate information and the protection of the reputation of others. That being so, the impugned seizure could not be considered to have been necessary in a democratic society as it had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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