Ceylan v. Turkey
European Court of Human Rights
30 EHRR 73 (2000)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
Münir Ceylan (plaintiff), the president of the petroleum workers’ union in Turkey (defendant), wrote an article that accused the Turkish government of state terrorism against the Kurdish people in Turkey and all members of the working class. The public prosecutor with the Istanbul National Security Court indicted Ceylan on charges of nonpublic incitement to hatred and hostility in violation of the Turkish criminal code. The national security court ruled that Ceylan had incited hatred and hostility by making distinctions based on ethnic or regional origin or social class and sentenced him to one year and eight months in prison and a fine of 100,000 Turkish liras. Ceylan appealed his sentence to the Turkey Court of Cassation, and his appeal was denied. Ceylan served his sentence in full. He lost his office as president of the petrol workers’ union and other political and civil rights. Ceylan filed an application against Turkey with the European Commission of Human Right (the commission) arguing that his conviction violated his right to freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of political opinions protected by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the convention).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Palm, Tulkens, Fischbach, Casadevall, Greve, J.J.)
Concurrence (Bonello, J.)
Dissent (Gölcüklü, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
