OKÇUOGLU v. TURKEYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: December 11, 1997
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
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 Okçuoglu'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 had alleged in his speech that "the citizens of Kurdish
race were denied their national rights; their land was divided among
the States in the region; the Kurds were fighting for their national
rights". His speech as a whole thus contained elements of propaganda
against the indivisibility of the State. I find that certain
indissociable sections of the applicant's speech 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 his speech 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.
(or. English)
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
