Gemici v. Turkey (25471/02)
| Date | 20081202 |
|---|---|
| Article | 6(1), 10 |
| Decision | violation |
The applicant, Ahmet Gemici, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). At the relevant time, he was the chairman of the local branch of the Labour Party (“EMEP”).
On 16 November 1999 the police searched the branch’s premises and seized copies of a party magazine whose distribution and sale had been banned by an order issued on the same date. The applicant claimed that he had not been informed of the ban on the magazines in question. The prosecutor brought proceedings against the applicant for failure to comply with the ban. The İzmir District Court ordered the applicant to pay a fine of about 184 United States dollars, without holding a hearing. The criminal court dismissed the objection lodged by the applicant against his conviction, also without holding a hearing
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant alleged that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression and complained that the criminal courts had not held an audience.
Noting that the applicant had never had an opportunity to appear in person before the judges who were called on to rule on his case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to hold a hearing during the criminal proceedings against him.
Moreover, the Court considered that the applicant’s conviction for possession of the prohibited magazines represented an interference with his right to freedom to communicate information and ideas, which was protected by Article 10. The Court emphasised that the refusal to comply with a judicial decision could only be considered reprehensible if the latter was brought to the knowledge of the individual concerned. It noted that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant had been informed of the decision to ban the magazine, and that the order had been issued on the same day as the police search. It considered that the applicant could not have foreseen, “to a degree that was reasonable”, that possession of the magazines in question could lead to criminal sanctions being imposed on him. It concluded that there had also been a violation of Article 10. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 180 in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)