## Facts

- Kamil Tekin Sürek, a Turkish national, was the majority shareholder of a company publishing a weekly review in Istanbul.
- In 1992, the review published two readers’ letters about the conflict in south-east Turkey between state security forces and the PKK.
- The letters used inflammatory language, referred to the region as “Kurdistan,” condemned named members of the security forces, and portrayed armed struggle in approving terms.
- Turkey faced an ongoing armed separatist campaign and serious public-order disturbances during the relevant period.
- The Istanbul State Security Court convicted Sürek under section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (1991) for disseminating separatist propaganda; he was acquitted of a separate charge related to provoking hatred.
- Although he did not write the letters and was not the editor, Sürek was held criminally liable as majority shareholder on the theory that he bore ultimate responsibility for the periodical’s content.
- Sürek complained that the conviction and fine violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and that trial before a State Security Court including a military judge violated Article 6 § 1 (independent and impartial tribunal).

## Issues

1. Whether the conviction and fine for publishing readers’ letters were a justified interference with freedom of expression under Article 10, including whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether the presence of a military judge on the Istanbul State Security Court violated the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1.

## Decision

- Article 10: No violation.
- The Court held the interference was prescribed by law (section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act) and pursued legitimate aims (national security, territorial integrity, and public order).
- Given the security situation, the content and tone of the letters were treated as inciting hatred and glorifying violence, including by naming security-force members in a manner that increased risk to their safety.
- The Court accepted that Sürek could be held responsible as majority shareholder with expected control over the publication’s direction.
- The sanction (a relatively modest fine) was found proportionate to the aims pursued.
- Article 6 § 1: Violation.
- The inclusion of a military judge on a tribunal trying civilians objectively cast doubt on the court’s independence and impartiality.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on expression may be justified when prescribed by law, aimed at protecting national security, territorial integrity, or public order, and necessary in a democratic society.
- Expression assessed as inciting violence or hatred, particularly in a context of armed conflict and serious public disorder, may be subject to sanction consistent with Article 10.
- Liability for unlawful publication content may extend beyond authors and editors where domestic law assigns responsibility to those with controlling roles in the publishing entity.
- A tribunal’s independence and impartiality may be undermined, from an objective standpoint, where a military judge sits on a court trying civilians in security-related cases.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber upheld Turkey’s sanctioning of the publication as a proportionate response to texts viewed as inciting hatred and glorifying violence in a volatile security context, but found the applicant was denied a fair hearing because the State Security Court’s composition, including a military judge, lacked objective independence and impartiality.


Sürek v. Turk., App. No. 26682/95, 1999-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. (1999)