Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 23500/94

E. P.

against

Turkey

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 11 December 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 6-13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 14-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 19-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 19-28). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 29-32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 33-60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 33). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

B. Points at issue

(para. 34). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

C. As regards Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention

(paras. 35-52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

CONCLUSION

(para. 53). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

D. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(paras. 54-57). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CONCLUSION

(para. 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

E. Recapitulation

(paras. 59-60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK. . . . . . . 13

APPENDIX : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 14

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights by the parties, and of the

procedure before the Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is a Turkish national. He was born in 1962 and

lives in istanbul. He was represented before the Commission by

Mr. Kazim Bayraktar, a lawyer practising in Ankara.

3. The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent

Government were represented by Mr. Bakir Çaglar, Professor at istanbul

University.

4. The case concerns the applicant's conviction by the State

Security Court for having had published his book entitled "Nevrozladik

Safaklari" ("We Turned each Dawn into a Newroz"), and the seizure of

published copies of the book, ordered by the District Court of Ankara.

5. The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that

his conviction for writing a book constituted an unjustified

interference with his freedom of thought. He also complains under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the confiscation of his book

constituted an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his

possessions.

B. The proceedings

6. The application was introduced on 18 November 1993 and registered

on 16 February 1994.

7. On 20 February 1995, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the

application to the Turkish Government and to invite the parties to

submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

applicant's complaints based (under Article 10 of the Convention) on

the alleged violation of his freedom of expression and (under Article 1

of Protocol No. 1) on the alleged violation of his right to the

peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

8. The Government's written observations were submitted on

9 August 1995, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicant replied on 15 September 1995.

9. On 4 December 1995 the Government submitted information

concerning the amendments made to the Anti-Terror Law (Law No. 3713)

and the developments in the cases of persons convicted and sentenced

under Article 8 of the said Law. The applicant submitted comments in

reply on 19 February 1996.

10. On 24 June 1996 the Commission declared the application

admissible.

11. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 9 July 1996 and they were invited to submit such

further information or observations on the merits as they wished.

12. None of the parties submitted any observations.

13. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself

at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly

settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now

finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be

effected.

C. The present Report

14. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

MM. R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

15. The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on

11 December 1997 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers

of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

16. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the respondent Government of their obligations

under the Convention.

17. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application

is appended to this Report.

18. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

19. The applicant is the author of the book entitled "Nevrozladik

Safaklari" ("We Turned each Dawn into a Newroz") which was published

in 1991 by Basak Yayinlari, a publishing company with its seat in

Ankara.

20. On 13 December 1991 the District Court of Ankara ordered the

seizure of published copies of the book.

21. In an indictment dated 22 April 1992, the Public Prosecutor at

the Ankara State Security Court (Ankara Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi)

charged the applicant with disseminating in his book separatist

propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The applicant was

further charged with disclosing to the public the identity of officials

in the province of Diyarbakir and rendering them targets for terrorist

attack. The indictment quoted certain extracts from the book, which

formed the basis for charges under Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 8

paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law.

22. In the proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, the

applicant denied the charges. He pleaded that the extracts referred to

in the indictment were merely quotations from other sources. He

maintained that the book as a whole, including the extracts quoted by

the Public Prosecutor, did not contain any element of propaganda. He

stated that he had only commented on the problems of the people of

Kurdish origin based on historical facts. He also denied the

accusations concerning the disclosure of the identity of officials and

rendering them targets. He stated that any opinion should be freely

expressed and argued. He asserted that a book cannot constitute a

threat to the indivisibility of the State.

23. In a judgment dated 23 December 1992, the Ankara State Security

Court found the applicant guilty of the offences charged. The Court

sentenced the applicant to two years' imprisonment and a fine of

50 million Turkish lira under Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror

Law. In its assessment of the evidence, the Court referred to certain

parts of the applicant's book, including the following:

"... On 13 February 1925 a raid was carried out on the village

of Piraz ... following the decision to arrest ten Kurdish

patriots. Those patriots, who preferred to fight rather than give

themselves up to the gendarmes, took their weapons and started

the war in the mountains. So the events you are witnessing years

later actually began with those clashes. ... "

"... The Turkish Grand National Assembly had been established for

two years and the Kurds were still waiting for the administration

to keep its promise of a solution to the Kurdish question. The

Kurds' silent wait was broken by this uprising led by Said-i

Paloyi. As the result of the administration's failure to meet

the Kurds' expectations for action to resolve the Kurdish

question once the Republic had been proclaimed, potentially

explosive anger had built up. And it was those angry expectations

that basically triggered the uprising ... Although the spreading

uprising did not involve all Kurds since it had developed on

tribal structures, the area surrounding Diyarbakir participated

in the movement to a large extent ..."

"... At a time long before you were born, when it was not yet

even known if you would be brought into the world as a Kurdish

daughter, the seed of the hatred that was to erupt fifty years

later was sown ...".

24. Such texts were interpreted by the Court as follows:

"The author refers to the rebels, who had revolted against the

Government in 1925 and had started an insurrection causing the

death of thousands of soldiers, as 'patriots'. He tries to

establish a connection between the insurrection of 1925 and the

events which were provoked by the P.K.K. during the 1990 Newroz

celebrations. He alleges that the Government deny the existence

of the Kurds. He refers to the Republic of Turkey as an occupying

and colonialist State. He implies that there are two separate

nations and countries within the territories of the Republic of

Turkey. The author's inaccurate version of events aims at

provoking enmity and hatred between the Turkish and Kurdish

societies."

25. The Court considered that the applicant's reference to the

identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism violated Article 6

paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law. However, considering the provisions

of Article 79 of the Turkish Criminal Code, it did not find any grounds

for a separate conviction under this provision. The Court also ordered

the confiscation of all editions of the book.

26. The applicant appealed. In his submissions to the Court of

Cassation dated 14 April 1993, the applicant's legal representative

stated, inter alia, that the applicant's conviction for writing and

publishing his comments and his ideas on historical facts and

sociological issues constituted a violation of his freedom of

expression. He asserted that the applicant had commented as a historian

on the facts concerning a nation's past. He challenged the Court's

interpretation of the applicant's comments in his book.

27. In a decision of 27 May 1993 which was delivered on 9 June 1993,

the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the cogency of

the State Security Court's assessment of the evidence and its reasoning

in rejecting the applicant's defence. It held that an examination of

the file did not disclose any error in the contested judgment.

28. After the amendments made by Law No. 4126 to the Anti-Terror Law,

the Ankara State Security Court re-examined the applicant's case. On

14 December 1995 the Court sentenced the applicant to one year's

imprisonment and a fine of 100 million Turkish lira under

Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law as amended.

B. Relevant domestic law

29. Article 6 paragraph 1 of Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of

12 April 1991

"isim ve kimlik belirterek veya belirtmeyerek kime yönelik

oldugunun anlasilmasini saglayacak surette kisilere karsi terör

örgütleri tarafindan suç islenecegini veya terörle mücadelede

görev almis kamu görevlilerinin hüviyetlerini açiklayanlar veya

yayinlayanlar veya bu yolla kisileri hedef gösterenler besmilyon

liradan onmilyon liraya kadar agir para cezasi ile

cezalandirilir."

"Those who announce that a crime will be committed by terrorist

organisations against certain persons either expressly or without

mentioning their names or who disseminate or disclose to the

public the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism or

who render such officials targets shall be sentenced to a fine

between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira."

30. Article 8 paragraph 1 of Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of

12 April 1991 (before the amendments of 27 October 1995)

"Hangi yöntem, maksat ve düsünceyle olursa olsun Türkiye

Cumhuriyeti Devletinin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlügünü

bozmayi hedef alan yazili ve sözlü propaganda ile toplanti,

gösteri ve yürüyüs yapilamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda 2 yildan 5 yila

kadar agir hapis ve ellimilyon liradan yüzmilyon liraya kadar

agir para cezasi hükmolunur."

"No one shall, by any means or with any intention or idea, make

written or oral propaganda or hold assemblies, demonstrations or

manifestations against the indivisible integrity of the State of

the Turkish Republic, its land and nation. Those carrying out any

such activity shall be sentenced to imprisonment between two and

five years and a fine between 50 and 100 million Turkish lira."

31. Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law as amended by

Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995

"Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti'nin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez

bütünlügünü bozmayi hedef alan yazili ve sözlü propaganda ile

toplanti, gösteri ve yürüyüs yapilamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda bir

yildan üç yila kadar hapis ve yüz milyon liradan üçyüzmilyon

liraya kadar agir para cezasi hükmolunur. Bu suçun mükerreren

islenmesi halinde, verilecek cezalar paraya cevrilemez."

"No one shall make written or oral propaganda or hold assemblies,

demonstrations or manifestations against the indivisible

integrity of the State of the Turkish Republic, its land and

nation. Those carrying out such activity shall be sentenced to

imprisonment between one and three years and to a fine between

100 and 300 million Turkish lira. In case of re-occurrence of

this offence, sentences shall not be commuted to fines."

32. Article 79 of the Turkish Criminal Code

"isledigi bir fiil ile kanunun muhtelif ahkamini ihlal eden

kimse, o ahkamdan en sedit cezayi tazammun eden maddeye göre

cezalandirilir."

"If a single act by a person constitutes a violation of several

provisions of the law, that person shall be punished in

accordance with the single provision which imposes the heaviest

punishment."

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

33. The Commission has declared admissible:

- the applicant's complaint that his conviction for writing a book

constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of thought;

- the applicant's complaint that the confiscation of his book

constituted an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his

possessions.

B. Points at issue

34. The points at issue in the present case are as follows:

- whether the applicant's conviction for writing the book in

question infringed his freedom of thought and expression as guaranteed

by Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention;

- whether the confiscation of the applicant's book constituted an

interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as

guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

C. As regards Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention

35. The applicant complains that his freedom of thought has been

infringed, contrary to Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention, in that

he was convicted for writing a book.

36. The Commission considers that the applicant's complaint

essentially concerns an alleged violation of his freedom of expression.

The Commission will therefore examine this complaint under Article 10

(Art. 10) of the Convention, which states:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right

shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart

information and ideas without interference by public authority

and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent

States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television

or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of

others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in

confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

the judiciary."

37. The applicant submits that he was convicted for expressing his

views on the Kurdish problem in Turkey. He asserts that he had

commented as a historian on the facts concerning the Kurdish people

living in Turkey.

38. The applicant maintains that freedom of expression should also

protect opinions which carry a risk of damaging, or which actually

damage, the interests of others, or opinions which are contrary to the

official line unless there exists a pressing social need for

restraining them. He contends that, in the circumstances of the present

case, there was no pressing social need for his conviction.

39. The respondent Government maintain that the comments made by the

applicant in his book constitute a provocation of enmity and hatred

between the Turkish and Kurdish societies which serves to mobilise

people to revolt. The book establishes a connection between the

insurrection of 1925 and the events which were provoked by the P.K.K.

(the Kurdish Workers Party - a terrorist organisation) during the 1990

Newroz celebrations. The Government contend that the applicant thus

approves of acts of violence committed by the P.K.K.

40. The Government conclude that the applicant's conviction was fully

justified under the second paragraph of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention, for reasons of national security, territorial integrity and

public safety.

41. The Commission is of the opinion that the penalty imposed on the

applicant constituted an "interference" in the exercise of his freedom

of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the

Convention. This point has not been in dispute between the parties.

42. Therefore, the question is whether this interference was

prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) and was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to

realise that legitimate aim.

43. The Commission notes that the applicant's conviction was based

on Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law and therefore considers that the

interference was prescribed by law.

44. As regards the aims of the interference, the Commission notes

that the applicant's conviction was part of the efforts of the

authorities to combat illegal terrorist activities and to maintain

national security and public safety, which are legitimate aims under

Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

45. The remaining issue is whether the interference was "necessary

in a democratic society". In this respect the Commission recalls the

following principles adopted by the Court (see, as the latest

authority, Eur. Court HR, Zana v. Turkey judgment of 25 November 1997,

Judgments and Decisions 1997 ...., para. 51):

(i) Freedom of expression, as enshrined in paragraph 1 of

Article 10 (Art. 10) constitutes one of the essential foundations of

a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress.

It is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are

favourably received or are regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of

indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are

the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without

which there is no "democratic society".

(ii) The adjective "necessary", within the meaning of

Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2), implies the existence of a "pressing

social need". The Contracting States have a certain margin of

appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand

in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and

the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court.

(iii) In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the organs of

the Convention must look at the impugned interference in the light of

the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against

the applicant and the context in which he made them. In particular,

they must determine whether the interference in issue was

"proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons

adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and

sufficient".

46. The Commission further notes that, while freedom of political

debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society

(Eur. Court HR, Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A

no. 103, p. 26, para. 42), that freedom is not absolute. A Contracting

State is entitled to subject it to certain "restrictions" or

"penalties", but the Convention organs are empowered to give the final

ruling on whether they are reconcilable with freedom of expression as

protected by Article 10 (Art. 10) (Eur. Court HR, the Observer and

Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A

no. 216, p. 30, para. 59(c)). In doing so, the Convention organs must

satisfy themselves that the national authorities did apply standards

which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10

(Art. 10) and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable

assessment of the relevant facts (Eur. Court HR, Jersild v. Denmark

judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 24, para. 31).

47. Even where, as in the present case, an interference with freedom

of expression is based on considerations of national security and

public safety and is part of a State's fight against terrorism, the

interference can be regarded as necessary only if it is proportionate

to the aims pursued. Consequently, the Commission must, with due regard

to the circumstances of each case and the State's margin of

appreciation, ascertain whether a fair balance has been struck between

the individual's fundamental right to freedom of expression and a

democratic society's legitimate right to protect itself against the

activities of terrorist organisations (cf. above-mentioned Zana

judgment, para. 55).

48. The Commission observes in this connection that

Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) also refers to "duties and

responsibilities" which the exercise of the freedom of expression

carries with it. Thus, it is important for persons addressing the

public on sensitive political issues to take care that they do not

support unlawful political violence. On the other hand, freedom of

expression must be considered to include the right openly to discuss

difficult problems such as those facing Turkey in connection with the

prevailing unrest in part of its territory in order, for instance, to

analyse the background causes of the situation or to express opinions

on the solutions to those problems.

49. The Commission notes that the applicant's book contains

quotations from texts denouncing the evolution of alleged Ottoman

colonialism and feudalism. It attempts to give a historical explanation

for the resumption of violence over recent years, particularly in the

Diyarbakir region. The Turkish courts found that the applicant's

interpretation of events was inaccurate and was aimed at provoking

enmity and hatred between the Turkish and Kurdish societies.

50. However, in the Commission's opinion, the applicant expressed his

views on the Kurdish question in relatively moderate terms, and did not

associate himself with the use of violence in the context of the

Kurdish separatist struggle.

51. The Commission finds that the applicant's conviction and the

confiscation of his book amounted to a kind of censure, which was

likely to discourage him or others from publishing ideas of a similar

kind again in the future. In the context of political debate such a

sentence is likely to deter writers from contributing to public

discussion of important political issues (cf. Eur. Court HR, Lingens

judgment, op. cit., p. 27, para. 44).

52. Consequently, the Commission, even taking into account the margin

of appreciation of the national authorities in this context, finds that

the interference with the applicant's freedom was not proportionate to

the legitimate aims pursued and could, therefore, not be regarded as

necessary in a democratic society to achieve the aims of national

security and public safety.

CONCLUSION

53. The Commission concludes, by 31 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

D. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

54. The applicant complains that the confiscation of his book

amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) which

provides:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

to control the use of property in accordance with the general

interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions

or penalties."

55. The applicant maintains that there was no pressing social need

for the confiscation of the book.

56. The Government maintain that, for reasons of national security,

territorial integrity and public safety, the confiscation of the book

was justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

57. The Commission considers that there is little evidence in the

case-file to suggest that the applicant was the actual owner of the

confiscated books. In any event, having regard to its above findings

under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, the Commission is of the

opinion that no separate issue arises in the present case under Article

1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

CONCLUSION

58. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that no separate issue

arises under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

E. Recapitulation

59. The Commission concludes, by 31 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention (see above

para. 53).

60. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that no separate issue

arises under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (see above para. 58).

M. de SALVIA S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

(Or. English)

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR A.S GÖZÜBÜYÜK

I do not find it possible to join the majority in concluding that

there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. In my opinion,

there are no solid grounds for concluding that, in this case, the

interference was not necessary in a democratic society and, in

particular, not proportionate to the aim of maintaining national

security and public safety.

In order to assess whether Mr P.'s conviction and sentence

answered a "pressing social need" and whether they were "proportionate

to the legitimate aims pursued", it is important to analyse the content

of the applicant's remarks in the light of the situation prevailing in

south-east Turkey at the time. In so doing, the Commission, taking

account of the margin of appreciation left to the Government, should

have confined itself to the question whether the judicial authorities

had good reasons to believe that there was a pressing social need for

such a measure, based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant

facts.

I note in this regard that, according to the national courts, the

applicant's book was aimed at provoking enmity and hatred between the

Turkish and Kurdish societies. In particular, the applicant alleged in

his book that the State oppressed the people of Kurdish origin,

attempted to destroy their identity by means of genocide and evacuation

and organised massacres against them. I find that certain indissociable

sections of the applicant's book are in fact of an inflammatory nature

and could, therefore, be deemed dangerous propaganda. In these

circumstances, the applicant's conviction and the penalty imposed on

him on account of the publication of his book could reasonably be said

to arise out of a pressing social need.

In the light of these considerations and having regard to the

State's margin of appreciation in this area, I am of the opinion that

the restriction placed on the applicant's freedom of expression was

proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and that, therefore, it

could reasonably be regarded as necessary in a democratic society to

achieve those aims.

Menu

E. P. v. Turkey

E. P. v. Turkey

LEXI