Human Rights Europe
Protestors who claim a series of legal actions by Turkish authorities undermined press freedom in the country, have today won the backing of human rights judges.
The European Court of Human Rights found violations in their Tuesday 17 June judgements in the following complaints: Aslan and Sezen v. Turkey (no. 43217/04), Aslan and Sezen v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 15066/05), Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 28470/08) Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 28516/08); Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 4323/09); Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 5) (no. 4327/09); Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 6) (no. 4375/09) and Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 7) (no. 10752/09)
Aslan and Sezen v. Turkey (no. 43217/04)*
Aslan and Sezen v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 15066/05)*
The cases concerned the issue of press freedom in Turkey.
The applicants, Memet Aslan and Zozan Sezen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952 and 1976 and live in Hamburg (Germany) and Istanbul. At the relevant time Ms Sezen was the owner of a bi-monthly periodical, Dema Nu, and Mr Aslan was its editor-in-chief.
The first case concerned an article published on 1 February 2003 in Dema Nu, giving an account of clashes which had occurred in south-east Turkey between the Turkish army and the PKK, an illegal armed organisation.
The State Security Court ordered the seizure of the relevant issue of the newspaper and the prosecutor called for Mr Aslan and Ms Sezen to be convicted for publishing statements by an illegal armed organisation in their newspaper. By a judgment of 10 June 2003, the State Security Court convicted them of an offence under the anti-terrorist legislation and imposed fines.
It also ordered the temporary closure of the newspaper for one day. Aslan and Sezan appealed on points of law and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
The second case concerned the publication of articles in the 30 April 2002 issue of Dema Nu, which resulted in the seizure of copies of the issue in question, on an order by a judge of the State Security Court, and subsequently in the imposition of fines on Aslan and Sezen, on the ground that their newspaper had published a statement by a terrorist organisation.
The State Security Court ordered that no issues of the newspaper be published for a week. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Aslan and Ms Sezen complained that their convictions had amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of expression.
Violation of Article 10 – in both cases
Just satisfaction:
– in the case of Aslan and Sezen (no. 43217/04): EUR 1,500 each to Aslan and Sezen (nonpecuniary damage)
– in the case of Aslan and Sezen (n° 2) (no. 15066/05): EUR 140 to Aslan and EUR 280 to Sezen ( respect of pecuniary damage), and EUR 1,500 each ( non-pecuniary damage)
Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 28470/08)*
Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 3) (no. 28516/08)*
Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 4323/09)*
Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 5) (no. 4327/09)*
Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 6) (no. 4375/09)*
Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 7) (no. 10752/09)*
The cases concerned the issue of press freedom in Turkey.
The applicants, Ahmet Sami Belek and İsmail Muzaffer Özkurt, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1978 respectively. They are the owner and editor-in-chief respectively of the daily newspaper Evrensel (“The Universal”), which has its head office in Istanbul.
Between 11 March 2004 and 26 February 2005 Evrensel published various articles which contained statements by the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK). Belek and Özkurt were charged with publishing statements by an illegal armed organisation, an offence punishable under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and ordered to pay fines not exceeding 2,000 Turkish lira (and thus not subject to an appeal on points of law).
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Belek and Özkurt alleged that their convictions had amounted to a breach of their right to freedom of expression.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complained, in particular, that it had been impossible to appeal to the Court of Cassation.
Violation of Article 10 – in all six cases
Violation of Article 6 – in all six cases, in respect of the impossibility for the applicants to appeal to the Court of Cassation
Just satisfaction:
– in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 2): EUR 258 each to Belek and Özkurt (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,500 each (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 500 to the two applicants jointly (costs and expenses)
– in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 3): EUR 870 to Belek and EUR 434 to Özkurt (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,500 each (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 500 to the two applicants jointly (costs and expenses)
– in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 4): EUR 745 to Belek and EUR 372 to Özkurt (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,500 each (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 500 to the two applicants jointly (costs and expenses)
– in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 5): EUR 934 to Belek and EUR 469 to Özkurt (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,500 each (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 500 to the two applicants jointly (costs and expenses)
– in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 6): EUR 779 to Belek and EUR 389 to Özkurt (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,500 each (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 500 to the two applicants jointly (costs and expenses)
– in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 7): EUR 656 to Belek and EUR 313 to Özkurt (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,500 each (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 500 to the two applicants jointly (costs and expenses)