Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199

August-September 2016

Semir Güzel v. Turkey - 29483/09

Judgment 13.9.2016 [Section II]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Failure of political party chair to prevent congress delegates from speaking in Kurdish: Article 10 applicable; violation

Facts – The applicant, vice-president of a political party, was prosecuted for having allowed participants at th e general congress he was chairing to speak in Kurdish during their interventions. At the relevant time, it was a criminal offence for a political party to use any language other than Turkish at congresses and meetings. In his application to the European C ourt the applicant complained that his prosecution was in breach of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

Law – Article 10: The Court reiterated that Article 10 protected not only the substance of ideas and information expr essed but also the form in which they were conveyed. In deciding whether a certain act or form of conduct fell within the ambit of Article 10, an assessment had to be made of the nature of the act or conduct in question, in particular of its expressive cha racter seen from an objective point of view, as well as of the purpose or the intention of the person performing the act or engaging in the conduct in question. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for not preventing some of the delega tes from speaking Kurdish. The applicant had acted in this way despite warnings from a government superintendent, which, from an objective point of view, could be seen as an expressive act of defiance towards an authority representing the State. Furthermor e the applicant had made it clear that he had not used his power as chairperson to intervene when certain delegates spoke in Kurdish because of his view that Kurdish should be used in all areas of life; that those who spoke Kurdish were speaking in their m other tongue; and that it was neither legal nor ethical for him to intervene and to force people to speak in a language other than their mother tongue.

The Court concluded that through his particular conduct the applicant had in fact exercised his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention and that Article was thus applicable in the present case. The Court further held that the relevant law (section 81(c) of Law no. 2820 on the regulation of political parties) was not clear enough to have enabled the applicant to foresee that he would face criminal proceedings and accordingly, the interference with his freedom of expression was not prescribed by law.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes