003-3496368-3940709

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 302   5.4.11   Conviction of the publisher of a book on the fight against illegal   organisations was in breach of the Convention   In   today’s   Chamber   judgment   in   the   case   of   Fatih   Taş   v.   Turkey   (application no. 36635/08), which is not final,1 the European Court of Human Rights   held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression);   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing); and   a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention   on Human Rights.   The case concerned the publication of a book describing the anti-terrorist activities of the   Turkish security forces, attributing murders to them and disclosing the names of officials   directly involved.   Principal facts   The applicant, Fatih Taş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul   (Turkey).   In 2004 the publishing company owned by him published a book written under   pseudonyms in which a former member of the PKK, an illegal organisation, talked about   his recruitment by the anti-terrorist agencies and the murders committed by those   agencies in the name of combating terrorism.   On 2 December 2004 the Istanbul public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in   the Istanbul Assize Court against the book’s authors and Mr Taş (as the publisher). The   charges related to the disclosure of the names of State officials who had taken part in   such operations, since that had allegedly led to their being identified as terrorist targets.   Several hearings were held between 2005 and 2007, although Mr Taş failed to appear at   some of them. On 25 January 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court found him guilty and fined   him 440 Turkish liras for having disclosed the names of officers and leading figures   involved in the fight against terrorism and thus causing them to become targets for   terrorist organisations. Lastly, it held that the book, taken as a whole, advocated   violence. On 25 May 2010 the Court of Cassation refused the applicant leave to appeal   on points of law, thus terminating the proceedings under domestic law.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Taş submitted that his conviction was in breach of Article 10. Relying on Article 6 § 1,   he also complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been   excessive. Lastly, under Article 13, he maintained that he had had no effective remedy in   Turkey in respect of those two complaints.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,   Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),   David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),   Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),   András Sajó (Hungary),   Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Judges,   and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Complaint concerning freedom of expression (Article 10)   The Court reiterated that Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, which permitted certain   restrictions on freedom of expression, had to apply particularly narrowly in relation to   political speech or matters of public interest. In addition, bearing in mind the seriousness   of the acts recounted in the book, there had been a legitimate public interest in knowing   not only the nature of the conduct of the officials in question but also their identity.   The Court acknowledged that the statements made in the book could, in themselves,   have been capable of exposing the persons concerned to a danger of assault, or else to   public contempt. The interference in question could therefore have been based on   relevant reasons (for the purpose of the necessity test in paragraph 2 of Article 10).   Nevertheless, the Court noted that the name of one of the officials concerned had   already appeared in a report submitted to the Turkish National Assembly in 1998, and   had also been published by a daily newspaper at the time. The other official, meanwhile,   had died in 1993. Lastly, since the information in question had been in the public domain   at the time of the publication, the interest in protecting the identity of those concerned   had been diminished and the potential damage resulting from its disclosure had already   been done.   With regard to the accusation of incitement to violence, the Court observed that   although the book had used virulent language, it had merely imparted ideas and   opinions on a matter of general interest in a democratic society.   Accordingly, despite the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in   punishing incitement to violence, the Court found that the interference with Mr Taş’s   freedom of expression had not been based on sufficient reasons to be deemed necessary   in a democratic society.   In the light of these considerations, the Court concluded that there had been a violation   of Article 10.   Complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1)   Although certain delays in the proceedings had been attributable to Mr Taş, who had   failed to appear at certain hearings, the Court found that the length of the criminal   proceedings against him had been excessive (five-and-a-half years at two levels of   jurisdiction).   Complaint concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy (Article 13)   With regard to the alleged lack of an effective remedy by which to complain of   interference with freedom of expression, the Court considered, in view of its examination   under Article 10 and the lack of satisfactory arguments submitted by Mr Taş in that   regard, that no separate examination of this question was necessary.   The Court further noted that it had already found that no effective remedy had been   available in respect of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. On that account, it   held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.   Article 41   By way of just satisfaction, the Court held that Turkey was to pay the applicant 250   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 1,770 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in French.   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, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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.   3