Yurttas v. Turkey, Nos. 25143/94, 27098/95, ECtHR (Third Section), 27 May 2004

Derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights in time of emergency. Deprivation of liberty of alleged terrorists without a prompt judicial intervention. Territorial scope of a derogation in time of emergency. Dissemination of separatist propaganda through political debate. Arbitrary interference with freedom of political debate. 

Art. 15 ECHR
Art. 10 ECHR
Art. 5 ECHR

1. The detention of the applicant, who was suspected of having committed a terrorist offence, for eleven days without being brought promptly before a judge breaches Art. 5, para. 3 ECHR. Although the Court recognizes the special difficulties of investigating terrorist offences, it notes that these circumstances do not allow authorities to arrest suspects without considering the guarantees enshrined in Art. 5 ECHR.

2. The criminal conviction of the applicant for disseminating separatist propaganda breaches Art. 10 ECHR. Although the applicant criticized certain measures taken by the Turkish authorities against the Kurdish people, the Court underlines that he spoke as a politician, and that his statements cannot be regarded as incitement to the use of violence, hostility or hatred. Consequently, the conviction of the applicant was disproportionate to the aim of protecting territorial integrity pursued by the Turkish authorities and therefore unnecessary in a democratic society. 

3. The extension of the effects of a derogation in time of emergency to territories not explicitly named in the notice of derogation runs counter to the object and purpose of Article 15 ECHR, since derogations from the obligations arising from the Convention are authorised only “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. As a consequence, derogating measures apply only to the regions where a state of emergency has been proclaimed.
(In the present case, the applicant, arrested and detained on suspicion of terrorism offences by the Turkish authorities in the city of Ankara, complained of breaches of Art. 5 ECHR. The Government maintained that, as Turkey had exercised the right of derogation under Article 15 ECHR, it had not violated the Convention. The Court noted that the city of Ankara was not included among the regions in which the state of emergency was proclaimed. Consequently, it stated that the derogation in question was inapplicable ratione loci to the facts of the case).