(Applications nos. 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Turgay and Others v. Turkey (no. 3), The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in four applications (nos. 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article...
SECOND SECTION CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) (Applications nos. 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Turgay and Others v. Turkey (no. 3), The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in four applications (nos. 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-one Turkish nationals (“the applicants”), whose names appear in the appendix. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr Ö. Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 22 April and 29 April 2008 the applicants' representative requested that the respondent Government be notified of the introduction of the applications in accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Court and that the cases be given priority under Rule 41. 4. On 17 October 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give priority to the applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
2 TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) JUDGMENT THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. The prosecution of the newspapers 5. At the material time the applicants were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four weekly newspapers published in Turkey: Haftaya Bakış, Yedinci Gün, Toplumsal Demokrasi and Yaşamda Demokrasi. The publication of these newspapers was suspended pursuant to section 6(5) of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act) by the Istanbul Assize Court on 18 March, 7 April, 25 February and 4 April 2008, respectively, for a period of one month on account of various news reports and articles. The impugned publications were mainly deemed to be propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL1, and to constitute the approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members. 6. Neither the applicants nor their representative participated in these ex parte procedures, and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed. Consequently, the orders were executed. B. The p...