AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 23556/94 by Münir Ceylan against Turkey The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 April 1996, the following members being present: MM. S. TRECHSEL, President H. DANELIUS C.L. ROZAKIS E. BUSUTTIL A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK A. WEITZEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS Mrs. G.H. THUNE Mr. F. MARTINEZ MM. L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS M.P. PELLONPÄÄ B. MARXER M.A. NOWICKI I. CABRAL BARRETO B. CONFORTI N. BRATZA I. BÉKÉS J. MUCHA E. KONSTANTINOV D. SVÁBY G. RESS A. PERENIC C. BÎRSAN P. LORENZEN K. HERNDL Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Having regard to the application introduced on 10 February 1994 by Mr. Münir Ceylan against Turkey and registered on 2 March 1994 under file No. 23556/94; Having regard to : - the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; - the fact that no observations were submitted by the respondent Government ; Having deliberated; Decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, a Turkish citizen born in 1951 and resident in Istanbul, is the president of Petrol Is Sendikasi (the Petroleum Workers' Union). Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Hasip Kaplan, Mr. Süleyman Bayram and Ms. Müesser Bas, all lawyers practising in Istanbul. A. Particular circumstances of the case The facts of the present case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows: In the twenty-ninth issue of "Yeni Ülke (New Land)" 1991, a weekly newspaper published in istanbul, an article by the applicant entitled "Yarin Çok Gec Olacaktir (Tomorrow will be too late)" was published. The article criticised State policy in the south-east region of Turkey and the Anti-Terror Law, stating that not only should Kurds oppose such policy and laws, but also the working class and its democratic institutions should take part in this struggle. In an indictment dated 16 September 1991, the Public Prosecutor at the istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with provoking feelings of hatred and enmity among the people in his article. The charges were brought under Article 312 paras. 1 and 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code. In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant denied the charges. He submitted that the subject of the article was human rights violations in the south-east region of Turkey. He maintained that he did not intend to create discord and strife among the people. He asserted that, in a democratic society, every subject should be discussed without any restriction. He further submitted that it was his responsibility as a trade union leader, to express his opinions concerning the problem of democracy in south-east Turkey. In a judgment dated 3 May 1993, the Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 312 para. 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment, plus a fine of 100.000 Turkish Lira. The Court held that the applicant, in his article, had alleged that the Kurds were being massacred in Turkey, and that Kurdish people were oppressed and were being silenced. It reached the conclusion that the applicant had provoked enmity and hatred among the people by discriminating on the grounds of region and social class. The applicant appealed. His legal representatives contested, inter alia, the State Security Court's assessment of the applicant's article. They asserted that the trial court should have received an expert opinion on the published article. They also argued that the applicant should have received a probation sentence. On 14 December 1993 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the State Security Court's assessment of evidence and its reasoning in rejecting the applicant's defence. B. Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law in the present case is contained in Article 312 paras. 2 and 3 and Article 311 para. 2 of the Criminal Code, the text of which is set out below: Criminal Code Article 312 paras. 2 and 3 "It shall be an offence punishable by not less than one and not more than three years' imprisonment, and by a fine of not less than three thousand and not more than twelve thousand lira, to provoke feelings of hatred and enmity among the people by discriminating on the grounds of social class, race, religion, sect or region. If such provocation imperils public safety, the punishment shall be increased by one third to one half of the sentence. The punishment for the acts defined in the preceding paragraph shall be doubled where they have been committed by the means enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 311." "Halki; sinif, irk, din, mezhep veya bölge farkliligi gözeterek kin ve düsmanliga açikça tahrik eden kimse bir yildan üç yila kadar hapis ve ucbin liradan onikibin liraya kadar agir para cezasi ile cezalandirilir. Bu tahrik umumun emniyeti için tehlikeli olabilecek bir sekilde yapildigi takdirde faile verilecek ceza üçte birden yariya kadar arttirilir. Yukaridaki fikralarda yazili suçlari 311 inci maddenin ikinci fikrasinda sayilan vasitalarla isleyenlere verilecek cezalar bir misli arttirilir." The means enumerated in Article 311 para. 2 of the Criminal Code are: mass media, tapes used in the registration of sound, records, films, newspapers, magazines, handwritten texts distributed in the form of leaflets, placards and posters.) COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that his conviction for publishing his article in a newspaper constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of thought and freedom of expression, in particular with his right to receive and impart information and ideas. 2. The applicant further complains under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention that his conviction and sentence for expressing his political opinion constituted discrimination on the ground of political opinion. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 10 February 1994 and registered on 2 March 1994. On 20 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Turkish Government who were invited to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits before 26 May 1995. By a letter dated 22 May 1995, the Government asked for an extension of the time-limit for one month. On 26 May 1995 the Government were informed that the President of the Commission had granted the request for extension of the time-limit and decided that the observations should be submitted not later than 26 June 1995. By a letter dated 26 June 1995, the Government asked for an extension of the time-limit again for one month. On 30 June 1995 the Government were informed that the President had granted their request and decided that the observations should be submitted not later than 26 July 1995. No further communication having been received from the Government, the Secretary to the Commission informed the Government by letter of 27 July 1995 that the Commission intended to examine again the admissibility of the application at one of its forthcoming sessions. THE LAW The applicant complains that his conviction and sentence for publishing an article in a newspaper constituted violations of Articles 9 (Art. 9) (freedom of thought), 10 (Art. 10) (freedom of expression) and 14 in conjunction with Article 10 (Art. 14+10) (prohibition on discrimination in the enjoyment of freedom of expression) of the Convention. The Commission notes that the application was communicated to the Turkish Government on 20 February 1995, that the Government were requested to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application not later than 26 May 1995, that the time-limit for the submission of the observations was subsequently extended first until 26 June 1995 and then for the second time until 26 July 1995. The Commission further notes that no observations were submitted before 26 July 1995, nor was any further extension of the time-limit requested before that date. Furthermore, the Government were informed by letter of 27 July 1995 that the Commission intended to examine the admissibility of the case at one of its forthcoming sessions. By letter of 9 April 1996, the Government were informed that the application was included in the list of cases to be examined by the Commission at its session in April 1996. The Commission is of the opinion that the application raises important questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved at the stage of admissibility but require an examination on the merits. The application cannot therefore be considered as being manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously, DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without prejudging the merits of the case. Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission (H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)