EHRM: Redenen voor veroordeling op grond van onrechtmatig handelen zijn niet relevant genoeg
EHRM 6 oktober 2015, IEFbe 1539; Application no. 15450/03 (Müdür Duman tegen Turkije) - persbericht
Vrijheid van meningsuiting. Het gaat om een lokale leider van een politieke partij die werd veroordeeld voor illegale foto's en publicaties die werden gevonden in het kantoor van zijn partij. Meneer Duman vindt dit inmenging in zijn recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting. Het Hof merkte op dat, hoewel de heer Duman heeft ontkend enige kennis van het materiaal te hebben, dit toch een inmenging in zijn rechten is op grond van art. 10 EVRM. Het Hof constateert dat de redenen voor de veroordeling niet relevant genoeg zijn. In het bijzonder kan het gedrag van meneer Duman niet worden uitgelegd als steun aan onrechtmatig handelen. Er is geen aanwijzing dat het materiaal pleit voor geweld, gewapend bezit of een opstand. Oftewel, schending van art. 10 EVRM: vrijheid van meningsuiting.
33. Turning to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the Istanbul Criminal Court convicted the applicant under Article 312 § 1 of the former Criminal Code on the ground that the display of symbols and pictures pertaining to the PKK and Mr Öcalan in the party building amounted to the offence of praising and condoning acts punishable by law. The Court notes that the applicant was prosecuted and convicted merely for keeping the aforementioned material in the party’s office, which was interpreted by the courts as an indication of respect and approval for the illegal organisation and its leader. The Court, however, considers that the applicant’s conduct could not be construed as support for unlawful acts committed by Mr Öcalan and the PKK or any approval in this regard inasmuch as neither in the domestic court decisions nor in the observations of the Government is there any indication that the material in question advocated violence, armed resistance or an uprising (see Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 50, 8 July 1999, and contrast Halis Doğan v. Turkey, no. 75946/01, §§ 35‑38, 7 February 2006).
34. The Court further observes that it was not indicated in the reasoning of either the Istanbul Criminal Court’s or the Court of Cassation’s decisions whether they had examined the proportionality of the interference and the balancing of rights taking into account freedom of expression (see Öner and Türk v. Turkey, no. 51962/12, § 25, 31 March 2015).
35. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the reasons given by the domestic courts for convicting and sentencing the applicant cannot be considered relevant and sufficient to justify the interference with his right to freedom of expression (see, among other authorities, Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
36. The Court further reiterates that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see, inter alia, Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 66, ECHR 1999‑IV). In this respect the Court notes the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, which is six months’ imprisonment.
37. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant’s conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not “necessary in a democratic society”. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
