Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2010-1/2European Court of Human Rights: Case of Ürper a.o. v. TurkeyThe Court’s judgment in the case of Ürper a.o. v. Turkey firmly condemns the bans on the future publicationof four newspapers. At the material time the applicants were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief,news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers published in Turkey: Ülkede Özgür Gündem, Gündem,Güncel and Gerçek Demokrasi. The publication of all four newspapers was suspended, pursuant to section 6(5)of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) by various Chambers of the Istanbul Assize Court, between16 November 2006 and 25 October 2007, for periods ranging from 15 days to a month in response to variousnews reports and articles. The impugned publications were deemed to publish propaganda in favour of a terroristorganisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL, as well as to express approval of crimes committed by that organisation andits members.The applicants alleged, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the suspension of the publication and distributionof their newspapers constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of expression. The European Courtreiterates that Article 10 of the Convention does not, in its terms, prohibit the imposition of prior restraints onpublication. However, the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny.This is especially true as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay itspublication, even for a short period of time, may well deprive it of all its value and interest. As freedom of thepress was at stake in the present case, the national authorities had only a limited margin of appreciation to decidewhether there was a “pressing social need” to take the measures in question. The Court was of the opinion that,as opposed to earlier cases that have been brought before it, the restraints under scrutiny were not imposed onparticular types of news reports or articles, but on the future publication of entire newspapers, whose content wasunknown at the time of the national court’s decisions. In the Court’s view, both the content of section 6(5) of Lawno. 3713 and the judges’ decisions in the instant case stem from the hypothesis that the applicants, whose “guilt”was established without trial in proceedings from which they were excluded, would re-commit the same kind ofoffences in the future. The Court found, therefore, that the preventive effect of the suspension orders entailedimplicit sanctions on the applicants to dissuade them from publishing similar articles or news reports in the futureand to hinder their professional activities. The Court considered that less draconian measures could have beenenvisaged, such as the confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or restrictions on the publication ofspecific articles. The Court concluded that by suspending the publication and distribution of the four newspapersinvolved, albeit for short periods, the domestic courts largely overstepped the narrow margin of appreciationafforded to them and unjustifiably restricted the essential role of the press as a public watchdog in a democraticsociety. The practice of banning the future publication of entire periodicals on the basis of section 6(5) of Lawno. 3713 went beyond any notion of a “necessary” restraint in a democratic society and, instead, amounted tocensorship. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.• Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), case of Ürper a.o. v. Turkey, Application nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07,15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07 of 20 October 2009http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=12168ENDirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaThe objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 1

European court of human rights: case of Ürper a.o. v. Turkey

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/877384/file/6826445.pdf

European court of human rights: case of Ürper a.o. v. Turkey

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography