CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     702   10.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF İBRAHIM AKSOY v. TURKEY     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case of İbrahim Aksoy v. Turkey. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 57,639 German marks (DEM) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, İbrahim Aksoy, is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin. He was born in 1948. He is a writer and a former HEP (People’s Labour Party) member of parliament.   The case concerns the applicant’s three convictions for disseminating separatist propaganda. The first arose out of a speech made on 18 May 1991 during the HEP ’s regional congress. The applicant also wrote an article entitled “Somalia – Bosnia - Kurdistan” in the 10-16   January 1993 edition of the weekly publication “Azadi”. That article led to his second conviction. His final conviction was in respect of a leaflet which appeared in 1994 entitled: “The solution for a new Turkey: the new policies for democratic change and the movement of the party for new democratic change”.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 August 1995, 29 September 1995 and 14 August 1996. The Commission decided to join them. They were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and assigned to the Third Section. On 7   December 1999 the Chamber declared the applications partly admissible.             Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained of violations of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 and not to be discriminated against guaranteed under Article 14 taken together with Article 10.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 of the Convention   The Court noted that the applicant had been convicted three times for having disseminated separatist propaganda in breach of section 8 of Law No. 3713 on the Prevention of Terrorism. It held that those three convictions amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of   expression. The interference was “prescribed by law” and pursued legitimate aims under Article 10 § 2, namely the protection of national security and territorial integrity, and the prevention of disorder or crime.   As to whether the three convictions had been necessary in a democratic society, having regard to the principles established by its case-law and to the background to the convictions, the Court decided to consider each separately.   1.     The first conviction – the speech at the HEP regional congress   The Court noted that the applicant had been penalised for having disseminated separatist propaganda through remarks he had made at the regional congress of a political party, the HEP . It observed that Mr Aksoy, acting in his capacity as secretary general of that party and a member of parliament, had sought to explain to those attending the congress the general principles of the action which his political party was taking. In particular, he had maintained that the Government had consistently denied the existence of a people. In the applicant’s view, a Kurdish problem existed and a solution to it would contribute to restoring democracy. He added that the HEP was a party of oppressed groups and consequently the party of the Kurds, the most oppressed group within Turkish society.   The Court observed that at the material time the applicant was an opposition member of parliament. In that capacity he was speaking as a member of parliament and as the secretary general of a political party, an actor on the Turkish political stage. The speech, made at an authorised congress, did not constitute an incitement to the violence, armed resistance or an uprising. That, in the Court’s view, was an essential element to be taken into consideration.   Moreover, the Court found that the remarks were not racist in content, contrary to what the Government had argued. Mr Aksoy had referred to what was, in his opinion, the most oppressed people in Turkish society. His speech was, in short, an appeal for recognition for the rights of that people. Furthermore, it did not appear from the reasoning set out in the relevant judicial decisions that the applicant, who was convicted of separatist propaganda, had been charged with ethnic discrimination in the criminal proceedings which had been brought against him.   2.     The second conviction – the publication of an article in the press   As regards the applicant’s second conviction, for having disseminated separatist propaganda in a weekly publication, the Court observed that the interference also had to be examined in the light of the essential role played by the press in a democracy.   The Court noted that the applicant had sought to explain in the article the reasons for the United Nations’ intervention in Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. After analysing the situation in those two countries, he had raised the issue of the remedy required for the situation in a region in Turkey. According to the author of the article, the situation “in Kurdistan” was comparable to that in Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the basis of data supplied by the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce and the Institute of Statistics, he reasoned that a like intervention was necessary in that region, as it was prey to “ hunger”, “a war”, and a high rate of infant mortality which Mr Aksoy attributed to a malnutrition and lack of medicines.   The Court considered that Mr Aksoy had written the article as a political figure and actor on the Turkish political stage. The article did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising. On the contrary, he had an assumed his important role of alerting public opinion to facts that were supported by data supplied by either independent or public bodies.   3.     The third conviction   – publication of a leaflet   As regards the applicant’s final conviction, for drafting and publishing a leaflet, the Court noted that the leaflet constituted a model programme for the new political party presided over by Mr Aksoy. It was directed at public opinion and sought the public’s assistance to identify the economic, social, political and cultural problems in Turkey.   In the leaflet, matters of concern to public opinion were dealt with comparatively. They included “the state of the world” and “a peaceful and equitable solution to the Kurdish problem”, a specific goal being “the reconstitution of a new Turkey and democratic change”. The leaflet included a proposal that the right be recognised for ethnic groups to govern themselves in order to build a “pluralist and participatory regime” and to restore democracy.   The Court considered one of the principal characteristics of democracy to be the possibility it offered of resolving a country’s problems through dialogue and without recourse to violence, even when it was irksome. Democracy thrived on freedom of expression.   Having examined the leaflet, the Court saw nothing in it which could be regarded as being a call to violence, uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. Admittedly, the question of the Kurdish people’s rights of self determination had been raised. However, it was of the essence of democracy to permit various political programmes to be put forward and debated, even those calling into question the way in which the State was organised, provided that they did not damage democracy itself. In that regard, it was notable that the author had on several occasions stressed the need to carry out the proposed political programme in accordance with democratic rules and in a peaceful and equitable manner.   Conclusion: violation of Article 10.   Article 14 taken together with Article 10   The Court observed that in finding a violation of Article 10 and in reaching the conclusion that the measures imposed in response to a speech, an article and a leaflet had not been necessary in a democratic society, it had stated that it was persuaded that the measures pursued legitimate aims, namely the protection of national security and territorial integrity and the prevention of crime or disorder. There was nothing to suggest that the resulting restrictions on freedom of exploration could be attributed to a difference in treatment based on the applicant’s ethnic origin. Accordingly, in Court held that there had been no violation of Article 14.   Conclusion: no violation of Article 14.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court awarded the applicant DEM 2,639 for pecuniary damage, DEM 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage, DEM 15,000 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.   [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.