BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mater v. Turkey - 54997/08 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 887 (16 July 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/887.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 887 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 165
July 2013
Mater v. Turkey - 54997/08
Judgment 16.7.2013 [Section II] See: [2013] ECHR 687 (French Text)
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Newspaper editorial criticising applicant without insulting her or calling for the use of violence: no violation
Facts - The applicant wrote a book containing the testimonies of former soldiers who had fought against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). She was prosecuted in connection with its publication on a charge of insulting the armed forces of the State, before being acquitted in September 2000. In August 2001 a newspaper printed a series of editorial articles which contained virulent criticism of the applicant. In October 2001 she applied to the courts seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage she had allegedly sustained as a result of the publication of the articles. Following lengthy proceedings her claims were eventually dismissed by the domestic courts.
Law - Article 8: The applicant, a public figure, had attracted more attention following the publication of her book and the considerable publicity surrounding the criminal proceedings against her that resulted from it. The articles in question had concerned topical subjects of general interest. Owing to the style used, the impugned pieces of journalism had directly engaged the reader on the subject of the facts set out in them. The tone of the articles had been incisive and ironic, they had included numerous negative comments and the journalist had expressed clear scepticism as to the authenticity of the interviews in the applicant’s book. The articles had also challenged the applicant directly. They claimed that she had received funding for the writing of the book from an American foundation with supposed links to the CIA, and cast doubt on her ideological and financial motives for writing the book.
The language used could be considered provocative. However, while any individual who took part in a public debate of general concern must not overstep certain limits, particularly with regard to respect for the reputation and the rights of others, a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation, was permitted. Moreover, the allegations made by the journalist in question had not been without some factual basis, especially regarding the funding received by the applicant for the writing of the book. The various ways in which the journalist had speculated about and interpreted the applicant’s motives for writing the book had been recognisable as personal comments and expressions of opinion and easily identifiable as such by the reader. Explanations had been printed in the form of a summary of statements including those of the applicant and of the chairman of the foundation in question, accompanied by comments from the journalist.
It was true that the applicant had been the subject, over a period of around ten days, of articles amounting to virulent criticism against her. However, the articles in question had been editorials which, although very forthright in tone, had not contained personal insults against the applicant or calls for the use of violence against her. In that sense their content was not sufficient to establish that they would in themselves have been capable of endangering the applicant’s physical safety or that of her family and friends.
Lastly, the domestic courts had stressed both the importance of press freedom and its limits with regard to the personality rights of others. The case had been examined three times by the Court of Cassation and the latter, sitting as a full civil court, had eventually concluded, after weighing up the different interests at stake, that the articles in question had remained within the bounds of permissible criticism.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
