5 cases v Turkey - 62608/00 [2011] ECHR 2385 (13 December 2011)

5 cases v Turkey - 62608/00 [2011] ECHR 2385 (13 December 2011)

The applicants' convictions under former Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law constituted unjustified interference with their freedom of expression, and the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation breached their right to a fair trial. The respondent state has since abrogated the offending legal provisions and implemented procedural safeguards, thus fulfilling its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 2385
Parties
Applicant: Erdal Taş; Applicant: Deniz; Applicant: Baskaya; Applicant: Tapkan and others; Applicant: Abdullah Aydın; Respondent: Turkey
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Violation / Execution of Judgment
Outcome
Examination of the cases closed; respondent state found to have complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Right to Fair Trial, Anti Terrorism Law, Article 10 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Right to Fair Trial Anti Terrorism Law Article 10 ECHR Article 6 ECHR

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erdal Taş

Applicant

Deniz

Applicant

Baskaya

Applicant

Tapkan and others

Applicant

Abdullah Aydın

Applicant

Turkey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Violation / Execution of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' convictions under former Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law constituted unjustified interference with freedom of expression
  2. 2 Whether the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion to the applicants before the Court of Cassation breached the right to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' convictions under former Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law constituted unjustified interference with their freedom of expression, and the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation breached their right to a fair trial. The respondent state has since abrogated the offending legal provisions and implemented procedural safeguards, thus fulfilling its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Examination of the cases closed; respondent state found to have complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.

Orders

  • Payment of just satisfaction to applicants as specified in the judgments.
  • Adoption of individual and general measures to remedy and prevent violations.