GOZEL AND OZER v. TURKEY - 43453/04 Press Release [2010] ECHR 1066 (06 July 2010)

GOZEL AND OZER v. TURKEY - 43453/04 Press Release [2010] ECHR 1066 (06 July 2010)

The applicants' convictions and the measures taken to stop publication were not necessary in a democratic society, as the Turkish courts failed to consider the context and content of the published texts and applied Law no. 3713 in a virtually automatic manner, violating Article 10. The failure to communicate the Principal Public Prosecutor's opinion to Mr Özer violated Article 6 § 1.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 1066
Parties
Applicant: Aylin Gözel; Applicant: Aziz Özer; Respondent: Turkey
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Chamber Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1 found; other complaints not examined separately.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Fair Trial, Publication by Banned Organisations, Media Convictions, Protection of Property
Human Rights Law Media Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Fair Trial Publication by Banned Organisations Media Convictions Protection of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aylin Gözel

Applicant

Aziz Özer

Applicant

Turkey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Chamber Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of media professionals for publishing statements by banned organisations violated Article 10 (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the failure to communicate the Principal Public Prosecutor's opinion to Mr Özer violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
  3. 3 Whether the convictions violated Article 7 (no punishment without law) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' convictions and the measures taken to stop publication were not necessary in a democratic society, as the Turkish courts failed to consider the context and content of the published texts and applied Law no. 3713 in a virtually automatic manner, violating Article 10. The failure to communicate the Principal Public Prosecutor's opinion to Mr Özer violated Article 6 § 1.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1 found; other complaints not examined separately.

Orders

  • Turkey to pay 170 euros to Ms Gözel for pecuniary damage
  • Turkey to pay 120 euros to Mr Özer for pecuniary damage