Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 178
Murat
Vural v. Turkey - 9540/07
Judgment 21.10.2014 [Section II] See: [2014] ECHR 1113
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Thirteen
years’ imprisonment for pouring paint over statues of Atatürk: violation
Facts - The applicant was sentenced to thirteen
years’ imprisonment in 2007 after being found guilty of an offence under the
Law on Offences Committed against Atatürk (Law no. 5816) for having poured
paint on statues of Kemal Atatürk. In accordance with domestic legislation,
between the date on which his conviction became final and the official end date
of his prison term, the applicant was unable to vote or be a candidate in
elections. He was conditionally released from prison in 2013.
Law - Article 10: The action which led to the
applicant’s conviction had constituted an expressive act. In the course of the
criminal proceedings and before the Court the applicant maintained that his aim
had been to express his “lack of affection” for Atatürk and his dissatisfaction
with Kemalist ideology and its followers. The domestic courts had not found him
guilty of vandalism, but of having insulted the memory of Atatürk. Therefore,
through his actions the applicant had exercised his right to freedom of
expression, and his conviction, imprisonment and disenfranchisement as a result
of that conviction constituted interference with his Article 10 rights.
That interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of
protecting the reputation or rights of others.
As to whether it had been “necessary in a democratic
society”, the Court first recalled that Kemal Atatürk had been an iconic figure
in Turkey and that the Turkish Parliament had chosen to criminalise certain
conduct which it considered insulting to his memory and damaging to the
sentiments of Turkish society. However, the Court was struck by the extreme
severity of the penalty laid down by domestic law and imposed on the applicant,
which was grossly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and therefore
not necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: As a consequence of his
conviction, the applicant had been prevented from voting for a period of over
eleven years and so was directly affected by the statutory measure, which had
already prevented him from voting on two occasions in parliamentary elections.
The Court recalled than in previous cases it had found that the application of
disenfranchisement in Turkey was automatic and indiscriminate and thus did not
fall within any acceptable margin of appreciation. There was no reason to reach
a different conclusion in the applicant’s case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
(See also Söyler v. Turkey, 29411/07,
17 September 2013, Information
Note 166; Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, 26005/08 and
26160/08, 12 June 2012, Information
Note 153; Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC],
74025/01, 6 October 2005, Information
Note 79; Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey,
23536/94 and 24408/94, 8 July 1999)