Murat Vural v. Turkey - 9540/07 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 1283 (21 October 2014)

Murat Vural v. Turkey - 9540/07 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 1283 (21 October 2014)

The Court found that the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant was grossly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and therefore not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10. The automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement also constituted a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 1283
Parties
Applicant: Murat Vural; Respondent: Turkey
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 found unanimously.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Disenfranchisement, Proportionality of Criminal Sanctions
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Disenfranchisement Proportionality of Criminal Sanctions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murat Vural

Applicant

Turkey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conviction and imprisonment for pouring paint over statues of Atatürk violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's disenfranchisement following conviction violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant was grossly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and therefore not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10. The automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement also constituted a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 found unanimously.

Orders

  • EUR 26,000 awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage
  • Claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed