Görmüş v. Turkey
Closed Expands Expression
- Mode of Expression
Press / Newspapers
- Date of Decision
January 19, 2016
Article 10 Violation
- Case Number
- Region & Country
Turkey, Europe and Central Asia
- Judicial Body
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
- Type of Law
International/Regional Human Rights Law, Military Order
Content Attribution Policy
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
- Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
- Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
Case Summary and Outcome
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Turkish magazine “Nokta” had its freedom of expression violated when the military searched its premises and seized documents and data stored in all of its 46 personal and workplace computers. The case stemmed from a 2007 publication by the magazine that relied on classified information made available to the magazine by whistleblowers. The Court addressed the issue of the protection journalistic sources of information and concluded that the government’s unannounced raid of the magazine extended beyond the military prosecutor’s office request to hand over the files provided by the whistleblower. In the Court’s view, such seizure could further deter anonymous sources from assisting the press in informing about matters of public interest that are otherwise secretly held by government authorities without any reasonable justification.
In 2007, the Turkish magazine Nokta published an article based on documents that were classified as confidential by the Chief of Staff of the armed forces. The documents revealed the introduction of a system to identify and designate journalists who were in favor of, or hostile to, the armed forces. That list was supposedly intended to be used by the army to selectively invite journalists to the events organized by the General Staff of the armed forces.
After a complaint lodged by the Chief of Staff of the armed forces, the Military Court issued an order to search of all the magazine’s premises, including electronic and paper copies of the files stored on all private and professional computers. The magazine objected to the search on the ground that it infringed the right to protect its sources. The military court, however, dismissed the objection pursuant to the Criminal Code of Turkey, which punishes the use, possession or dissemination of information whose disclosure would endanger State security.
Subsequently, the magazine’s publishing director, editors-in-chief, and two of its investigative journalists lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, contending that the government’s search and subsequent seizure of their documents violated their right to freedom of expression by identifying their sources of information and limiting their journalist right to received and impart information.
The right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights includes “the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” As the present case concerned the disclosure of information held by the Turkish armed forces, the Court first addressed whether the content of the article contributed to a public debate. It noted that the nature of the information reflected the existing debate in the public with respect to the armed forces’ involvement in the country’s political life. The Court particularly noted that a number of organizations representing the media had already protested the army’s selective approach towards journalists, describing it as an arbitrary practice that would inherently exclude those dissenting journalists from expressing their point of views and more importantly, limiting their given right to impart information on matters of public interest that might seem at odds with the army.
The Court then addressed the issue of the protection journalist sources of information. It concluded that the government’s unannounced raid of the magazine extended beyond the military prosecutor’s office request to hand over the files provided by the whistleblower. In the Court’s view, such seizure could further deter anonymous sources from assisting the press in informing about matters of public interest that are otherwise secretly held by government authorities without any reasonable justification.
As to whether the magazine’s journalists acted responsibly in handling the confidential information, the Court stated that as a general rule a journalist must not publish information provided by a whistleblower government official until the official had exhausted administrative procedures to draw his or her superior’s attention to potentially unlawful acts evidenced in the information. In this case, however, the Court noted that the Turkish legislation at the time did not provide for such procedures and therefore, the magazine could not be criticized for disclosing the armed force’s documents without waiting for their sources to raise their concerns.
With respect to the issue of confidentiality, the Court held that generally the government is justified in not disclosing information about “the internal organisation and functioning of the armed forces.” Here, the Court ruled that the reasons brought by the government in keeping the information confidential were not justified, as it failed to show that the disclosure would have a detrimental impact. The Court also took an additional step in addressing whether maintaining public confidence in the functioning of the government, namely the armed forces in this case, outweighed the public’s right to be informed of the controversial practice of treating journalists differently. It held that the public interest in the disclosure of the information was so important in a democratic society that it outweighed the necessity of maintaining public confidence in the armed forces.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the Court unanimously found Turkey in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Table of Authorities
Related International and/or regional laws
- ECtHR, The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6538/74 (1979)
- ECtHR, Casado Coca v. Spain, App. No. 15450/89 (1994)
- ECtHR, Stoll v. Switzerland, App. No. 69698/98 (2007)
- ECtHR, De Haes v. Belgium, App. No. 19983/92 (1997)
- ECtHR, Fressoz v. France, App. No. 29183/95 (1999)
- ECtHR, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], App. No. 21980/93 (1999)
- ECtHR, Goodwin v. United Kingdom, App. No. 17488/90 (1996)
- ECHR, Worm v. Austria, No. 83/1996/702/894 (Aug. 29, 1997)
- ECtHR, Dupuis and Others v. France, App. No. 1914/02 (2007)
- ECtHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 (1976)
- ECtHR, Colombani v. France, App. No. 51279/99 (2002)
- ECtHR, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], App. No. 49017/99 (2004)
- ECtHR, Masschelin v. Belgium, App. No. 20528/05 (2007)
- ECtHR, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands, App. No. 38224 (2003)
- ECtHR, Martin v. France. App. No. 30002/081 (2012)
- ECtHR, Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, App. No. 26419/10 (2013)
- ECtHR, Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV et al. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 39315/06 (2012)
- ECtHR, Roemen v. Luxembourg, No. 51772/99 (2003)
- ECtHR, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, App. No.12945/87 (1992)
- ECtHR, Guja v. Moldova, App. No.14277/04 (2008)
- ECtHR, Levent Bektaş v. Turkey, App. No. 70026/10 (2012)
- ECtHR, Artico v. Italy, App. No. 6694/74 (1980)
- ECtHR, Barfod v. Denmark, App. No. 11508/85 (1989)
- ECtHR, Bucur v. Romania, App. No. 40238/02 (2013)
- ECtHR, Sürek v. Turkey (No. 1), App. No. 26682/95 (1999)
- ECtHR, Chauvy v. France, App. No. 64915/01 (2004)
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
The decision was cited in:
Official Case Documents
Official Case Documents:
- European Court of Human Rights Görmüş a.o. v. Turkey
- Judgement (French)
- Press Release
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.