The Chilling Effect of Turkey’s Article 301 Insult Law external link

European Human Rights Law Review , vol. 2019, num: 3, pp: 298-308, 2019

Abstract

This article discusses how the approach of the European Court of Human Rights has evolved in seeking to protect freedom of expression from the chilling effect of Turkey’s controversial Article 301 insult law. The article reveals the early reluctance within the Court in finding that the law’s provisions were incompatible with freedom of expression, and yet, the analysis now demonstrates how the Court’s concern for the chilling effect has led the Court to two adopt notable approaches: first, the Court permitting applicants to argue that the law, in and of itself, violates the European Convention on Human Rights, even where an applicant has not been convicted, nor even prosecuted under the law; and second, the Court’s application of its rarely-used competence under Article 46 of the European Convention, finding that amending Article 301 would “constitute an appropriate form of execution” of the Court’s judgment.

chilling effect, frontpage, Turkije, vrijheid van meninguiting

Bibtex

Article{Fahy2019b, title = {The Chilling Effect of Turkey’s Article 301 Insult Law}, author = {Fahy, R.}, year = {0614}, date = {2019-06-14}, journal = {European Human Rights Law Review }, volume = {2019}, number = {3}, pages = {298-308}, abstract = {This article discusses how the approach of the European Court of Human Rights has evolved in seeking to protect freedom of expression from the chilling effect of Turkey’s controversial Article 301 insult law. The article reveals the early reluctance within the Court in finding that the law’s provisions were incompatible with freedom of expression, and yet, the analysis now demonstrates how the Court’s concern for the chilling effect has led the Court to two adopt notable approaches: first, the Court permitting applicants to argue that the law, in and of itself, violates the European Convention on Human Rights, even where an applicant has not been convicted, nor even prosecuted under the law; and second, the Court’s application of its rarely-used competence under Article 46 of the European Convention, finding that amending Article 301 would “constitute an appropriate form of execution” of the Court’s judgment.}, keywords = {chilling effect, frontpage, Turkije, vrijheid van meninguiting}, }

Annotatie bij EHRM 21 oktober 2014 (Vural / Turkije) external link

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, num: 36, pp: 4465-4471, 2016

Abstract

Vrijheid van meningsuiting. Veroordeling tot ruim 13 jaar gevangenisstraf en ontneming kiesrecht wegens belediging nagedachtenis Atatürk door standbeelden met verf te besmeuren. Proportionaliteit. Schending art. 10 EVRM en art. 3 Eerste Protocol.

Art. 10 EVRM, belediging, frontpage, Turkije, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Article{Dommering2016b, title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 21 oktober 2014 (Vural / Turkije)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2016_336.pdf}, year = {0913}, date = {2016-09-13}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {36}, abstract = {Vrijheid van meningsuiting. Veroordeling tot ruim 13 jaar gevangenisstraf en ontneming kiesrecht wegens belediging nagedachtenis Atatürk door standbeelden met verf te besmeuren. Proportionaliteit. Schending art. 10 EVRM en art. 3 Eerste Protocol.}, keywords = {Art. 10 EVRM, belediging, frontpage, Turkije, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }