Aktan v. Turkey (20863/02)
| Date | 20080923 |
|---|---|
| Article | 10 |
| Decision | violation |
No violation of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 10
Aktan v. Turkey (no. 20863/02)
The applicant, Sakine Aktan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Zurich (Switzerland). She is a journalist.
The case concerned the publication in the daily newspaper Özgür Bakış in December 1999 of a report produced by the applicant with the president of the Association of Journalists of Kurdistan in which the latter criticised the pressure exerted on journalists working for the Kurdish press. The Istanbul National Security Court sentenced the applicant twice, in May 2001 and February 2004, to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine, ruling that the article taken as a whole was intended to incite the people to hatred and hostility. Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code, the applicant’s case was reopened. She was acquitted of the charges against her in August 2007, but the proceedings are still pending as the prosecution appealed against her acquittal. She relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression). She further complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had not been fair, as she had not been supplied with a copy of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion during the initial phase of the proceedings.
As regards the complaint that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had not been fair, the Court considered that the reopening of the criminal proceedings could be regarded as having provided a remedy for the complaint raised by the applicant and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.
As to the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, the Court considered that although certain particularly critical passages in the article portrayed Turkey in an extremely negative light, and thus gave the text a hostile connotation, they did not incite violence, armed resistance or rebellion and did not constitute hate speech. It further held that the sentences repeatedly imposed on the applicant had been disproportionate to the aims sought to be achieved and accordingly not “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded Mrs Aktan EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)