## Facts

- Münir Ceylan, a Turkish national and president of a petroleum workers’ union, wrote a 1991 newspaper article sharply criticizing state policy toward Kurds and workers, using phrases such as “state terrorism” and “genocide.”
- Turkish authorities prosecuted him under Criminal Code Article 312 §§ 1–2 for “non-public incitement to hatred and hostility,” alleging he drew distinctions based on ethnic origin, region, or social class and thereby incited hostility.
- The Istanbul National Security Court convicted him and imposed a sentence of one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine; the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.
- Ceylan served the prison sentence and, as a consequence of the conviction, lost his union office and certain civil and political rights.
- He complained to the European human-rights system that the conviction violated freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, also invoking Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10.

## Issues

1. Whether Ceylan’s conviction and punishment for publishing the article interfered with Article 10 rights and, if so, whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether there was discrimination contrary to Article 14 when read with Article 10.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber found an interference with Article 10 that was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims (including national security, territorial integrity, and prevention of disorder).
- The Court held the interference was not necessary in a democratic society because the domestic reasons were not shown to meet a pressing social need and the response was disproportionate.
- The Court emphasized the article, though harsh and polemical, did not amount to incitement to violence, armed resistance, or uprising, and was not hate speech in the strict sense.
- The Court relied on the severity of the sanctions—imprisonment served in full, a fine, and collateral consequences such as loss of union office—as weighing strongly against proportionality.
- Having found an Article 10 violation, the Court held it unnecessary to decide the Article 14 complaint separately.
- The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages.

## Legal Principles

- Political expression and debate on matters of public interest receive strong protection; Article 10 safeguards speech that may “offend, shock or disturb.”
- An Article 10(2) restriction must correspond to a pressing social need, be supported by relevant and sufficient reasons, and be proportionate to the legitimate aim.
- National authorities have a margin of appreciation, but it is subject to close international supervision, particularly for political speech.
- In national-security and public-order cases, criminal sanctions require convincing justification; imprisonment for non-violent political speech demands exceptional reasons.
- The nature and severity of the penalty, including collateral consequences, are central to proportionality review under Article 10.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber concluded that imprisoning and otherwise penalizing a union leader for a strongly worded political article, absent a demonstrated incitement to violence or hatred, was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and violated Article 10.


Ceylan v. Turkey, 30 Eur. H.R. Rep. 73 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1999) (Grand Chamber)