issued by the Registrar of the Court  
no. 302  
5.4.11  
Conviction of the publisher of a book on the fight against illegal  
organisations was in breach of the Convention  
In  
today’s  
Chamber  
judgment  
in  
the  
case  
of  
Fatih  
Taş  
v.  
Turkey  
(application no. 36635/08), which is not final,1 the European Court of Human Rights  
held, unanimously, that there had been:  
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression);  
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing); and  
a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention  
on Human Rights.  
The case concerned the publication of a book describing the anti-terrorist activities of the  
Turkish security forces, attributing murders to them and disclosing the names of officials  
directly involved.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Fatih Taş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul  
(Turkey).  
In 2004 the publishing company owned by him published a book written under  
pseudonyms in which a former member of the PKK, an illegal organisation, talked about  
his recruitment by the anti-terrorist agencies and the murders committed by those  
agencies in the name of combating terrorism.  
On 2 December 2004 the Istanbul public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in  
the Istanbul Assize Court against the book’s authors and Mr Taş (as the publisher). The  
charges related to the disclosure of the names of State officials who had taken part in  
such operations, since that had allegedly led to their being identified as terrorist targets.  
Several hearings were held between 2005 and 2007, although Mr Taş failed to appear at  
some of them. On 25 January 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court found him guilty and fined  
him 440 Turkish liras for having disclosed the names of officers and leading figures  
involved in the fight against terrorism and thus causing them to become targets for  
terrorist organisations. Lastly, it held that the book, taken as a whole, advocated  
violence. On 25 May 2010 the Court of Cassation refused the applicant leave to appeal  
on points of law, thus terminating the proceedings under domestic law.  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
 
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Mr Taş submitted that his conviction was in breach of Article 10. Relying on Article 6 § 1,  
he also complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been  
excessive. Lastly, under Article 13, he maintained that he had had no effective remedy in  
Turkey in respect of those two complaints.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2008.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,  
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),  
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),  
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),  
Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),  
András Sajó (Hungary),  
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Judges,  
and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Complaint concerning freedom of expression (Article 10)  
The Court reiterated that Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, which permitted certain  
restrictions on freedom of expression, had to apply particularly narrowly in relation to  
political speech or matters of public interest. In addition, bearing in mind the seriousness  
of the acts recounted in the book, there had been a legitimate public interest in knowing  
not only the nature of the conduct of the officials in question but also their identity.  
The Court acknowledged that the statements made in the book could, in themselves,  
have been capable of exposing the persons concerned to a danger of assault, or else to  
public contempt. The interference in question could therefore have been based on  
relevant reasons (for the purpose of the necessity test in paragraph 2 of Article 10).  
Nevertheless, the Court noted that the name of one of the officials concerned had  
already appeared in a report submitted to the Turkish National Assembly in 1998, and  
had also been published by a daily newspaper at the time. The other official, meanwhile,  
had died in 1993. Lastly, since the information in question had been in the public domain  
at the time of the publication, the interest in protecting the identity of those concerned  
had been diminished and the potential damage resulting from its disclosure had already  
been done.  
With regard to the accusation of incitement to violence, the Court observed that  
although the book had used virulent language, it had merely imparted ideas and  
opinions on a matter of general interest in a democratic society.  
Accordingly, despite the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in  
punishing incitement to violence, the Court found that the interference with Mr Taş’s  
freedom of expression had not been based on sufficient reasons to be deemed necessary  
in a democratic society.  
In the light of these considerations, the Court concluded that there had been a violation  
of Article 10.  
2
Complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1)  
Although certain delays in the proceedings had been attributable to Mr Taş, who had  
failed to appear at certain hearings, the Court found that the length of the criminal  
proceedings against him had been excessive (five-and-a-half years at two levels of  
jurisdiction).  
Complaint concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy (Article 13)  
With regard to the alleged lack of an effective remedy by which to complain of  
interference with freedom of expression, the Court considered, in view of its examination  
under Article 10 and the lack of satisfactory arguments submitted by Mr Taş in that  
regard, that no separate examination of this question was necessary.  
The Court further noted that it had already found that no effective remedy had been  
available in respect of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. On that account, it  
held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.  
Article 41  
By way of just satisfaction, the Court held that Turkey was to pay the applicant 250  
euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary  
damage and EUR 1,770 in respect of costs and expenses.  
The judgment is available only in French.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its  
Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS  
feeds.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3