CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 589 27.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1] Aksu v. Turkey (application nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04)     REFERENCE TO STEREOTYPED IMAGE OF ROMA IN ACADEMIC STUDY AND DICTIONARY NOT DISCRIMINATORY   No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mustafa Aksu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1931 and lives in Ankara. He is of Roma origin and alleged that two government-funded publications included remarks and expressions that reflect anti-Roma sentiment.   On behalf of the Turkish Gypsy associations, Mr Aksu filed a petition with the Ministry of Culture in June 2001, complaining that a book published by the Ministry, entitled “The Gypsies of Turkey”, contained passages that humiliated Gypsies. In particular, he claimed that the author stated that Gypsies engaged in criminal activities, living as “thieves, pickpockets, swindlers, robbers, usurers, beggars, drug dealers, prostitutes and brothel keepers”. Mr   Aksu therefore requested that the sale of the book be stopped and all copies seized.   Informed by the Ministry of Culture that, according to its publications advisory board, the book reflected scientific research, and that the author would not allow any amendments, Mr   Aksu brought civil proceedings against the ministry and the author of the book. He requested compensation and asked for the book to be confiscated and for its publication and distribution to be stopped. In September 2002, Ankara Civil Court dismissed the requests in so far as they concerned the author and decided that it lacked jurisdiction as regards the case against the Ministry. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment and eventually dismissed Mr   Aksu’s request for rectification in December 2003. In April 2004 the administrative court dismissed the complaint subsequently lodged by Mr   Aksu against the ministry. Both the civil court and the administrative court held that the book was the result of academic research and that the passages in question were not insulting.   The second publication, a dictionary for school pupils, had been published in 1998 by a language association and had been funded by the Ministry of Culture. In April 2002 Mr   Aksu sent a letter to the language association on behalf of the Confederation of Gypsy Cultural Associations, alleging that certain entries in the publication, such as “gypsyness” for stinginess and greediness, were insulting and discriminatory against Gypsies. He asked the association to remove a number of expressions from the dictionary.   Having received no reply, Mr   Aksu brought civil proceedings against the association in April   2003, requesting that the expressions in question be removed and asking for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he had suffered. In July 2003, the civil court dismissed the case, holding that the definitions in the dictionary were based on historical and sociological facts and that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase an ethnic group. It further noted that there were similar expressions in Turkish concerning other ethnic groups, which were also included in dictionaries. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March 2004.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained, in two separate applications, that certain passages and expressions included in the two publications reflected clear anti-Roma sentiment and that the refusal of the domestic courts to award compensation demonstrated a bias against Roma. He relied on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   6 (right to a fair trial).   The first application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23   January 2004 and the second on 4 August 2004. The Court decided to join them in view of their similar subject matter.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), judges,   and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The applicant’s victim status   The Court found that Mr Aksu had victim status under the Convention. He was of Roma origin and felt offended by the language used in the publications in question. Although he had not been targeted directly in person by the author of the book or the publisher of the dictionary, he had been able under domestic law to argue his cases before the national courts at two levels of jurisdiction.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8   As to the merits of the case, the Court found it more appropriate to examine Mr   Aksu’s request under Article   14 in conjunction with Article   8.   The Court reiterated that Article 8 did not merely compel the State to abstain from arbitrary interference with an individual’s private life, but could also give rise to positive obligations to adopt measures designed to secure respect for private life. In the present case, the Court observed that Mr   Aksu had been able to argue his cases thoroughly before the domestic courts and that it was clear from the case file that the domestic courts had conducted a thorough examination of the cases. They had thereby provided a forum for solving the dispute between private persons as part of their obligations under Article   8.   The Court further underlined that the domestic courts were in a better position to evaluate the facts of a given case and that it was not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by a national court, except where they might have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.   As regards the book “The Gypsies of Turkey”, the Court noted that the passages cited by Mr   Aksu, when read on their own, appeared to be discriminatory or insulting. However, examined as a whole, the book did not allow a reader to conclude that the author had any intention of insulting the Roma community. It was made clear in the conclusion to the book that it was an academic study which conducted a comparative analysis and focused on the history and socio-economic living conditions of the Roma people in Turkey. The Court observed that the author in fact referred to the biased portrayal of the Roma and gave examples of their stereotyped image. It was important to note that the passages referred to by Mr   Aksu were not the author’s comments but examples of the perception of Roma people in Turkish society.   As regards the dictionary, the Court observed that the expressions and definitions in question were prefaced with the comment that they were of a metaphorical nature. The Court therefore found no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ findings that Mr   Aksu had not been subjected to discriminatory treatment because of the expressions listed.   The Court concluded, by four votes to three, that it could not be said that Mr   Aksu had been discriminated against on account of his ethnic identity as a Roma, or that there had been a failure on the part of the authorities to take the necessary measures to secure respect for the applicant’s private life. There had therefore been no breach of Article   14 taken in conjunction with Article   8.   Judges Tulkens, Tsotsoria and Pardalos expressed a joint dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .