Erdogan portrayed as Bush’s dog in a collage at a public exhibition. Arrest, pre-trial detention and conviction of the artist! Violation of freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Dickinson v. Turkey 02.02.2021 (app. no. 25200/11)
SUMMARY
Collage exhibition in public places against Erdogan. Freedom of expression, political criticism and proportionality of intervention.
The applicant, a British national who has been a professor at Istanbul University for more than 20 years, exhibited in a public event and in a courtroom a collage of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a dog of Bush, wanting to criticize Turkey’s policy in relation to Iraq. He was arrested, detained for 3 days and prosecuted for insulting the Prime Minister. He was sentenced to a fine of 3,043 euros with suspension. He filed a complaint with the ECtHR for violation of freedom of expression.
According to the established case law of the Court, Article 10 of the Convention includes the freedom of artistic expression.
The ECtHR, taking into account the applicant’s work of art, the context of its public exhibition, did not consider its true basis, style and content to be offensive in the context of the public debate in which it took place. The ECtHR held that the applicant’s criminal prosecution, fine and detention had violated his right to freedom of expression and that the domestic authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the conflicting interests of privacy 8 of the politician concerned and the applicant’s freedom of expression. It ruled that there was a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR and sentenced Turkey to 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
PROVISIONS
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Michael Dickinson, is a British national who was born in 1950. At the relevant time he
had been living in Turkey for about twenty years and was teaching in two universities in Istanbul
(Turkey). He is also a collage artist.
The case concerned Mr Dickinson’s criminal conviction for insulting the then Prime Minister, Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan, through a collage exhibited by him which had criticised Mr Erdoğan’s political
support for the occupation of Iraq.
Mr Dickinson’s work portrayed the Prime Minister’s head glued to the body of a dog, which was held
on a leash decorated with the colours of the American flag and had the following phrase pinned on
its torso: “We Will not be Bush’s Dog”. He displayed it in March 2006 in a tent erected as part of the
“Peace Fair”, a protest event organised along the Beşiktaş Quay in Kadıköy (Istanbul).
Following this exhibition, the judicial authorities brought criminal proceedings against the person in
charge of the demonstration, on a charge of insulting the Prime Minister.
Before the hearing in those proceedings, which was held on 12 September 2006, Mr Dickinson again
displayed his work in the corridors of the court building, then outside that building, before the
camera of two journalists and other people who were present in the street. Mr Dickinson was placed
in police custody on the same day, then in pre-trial detention. He was released on 15 September
2006.
On the following day criminal proceedings were brought against him for insulting the Prime Minister,
in application of Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
In March 2010 Mr Dickinson was ordered to pay a judicial fine of around 3,043 euros for having
displayed his collage in the corridors of the court building and in the street. The court considered
that Mr Dickinson’s work was such as to humiliate and insult the Prime Minister and represented an
attack on his honour and reputation. However, the court decided to suspend delivery of its judgment
for five years.
In December 2015 the court set aside the judgment in respect of which sentencing had been
deferred and ordered that the criminal proceedings be discontinued. It noted that Mr Dickinson had
not committed any new intentional offences during the five-year period of suspension and that he
had complied with the conditions attached to the supervision order.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
Mr Dickinson complained about the criminal proceedings brought against him for his artistic work
and the fact that he had been convicted at the close of those proceedings for having insulted the
Prime Minister.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court recalled that Article 10 of the ECHR includes freedom of artistic expression which enables participation in the public exchange of cultural, political and social information and ideas of all kinds.
In addition, the Court has emphasized that, when asked to rule on a conflict between two rights also protected by the Convention, it must weigh the interests at stake. The result of the conflict cannot in principle be concluded. It differs depending on whether the Court has before it, in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, the person who is the subject of the article in question or, in accordance with Article 10, the author of that article.
In the present case, the Court noted that the plaintiff had been sentenced to a fine for insulting the Prime Minister for publicly exposing a collage project. The awarded fine was suspended. The Court noted that the applicant was an academic professor of British descent who had lived in Turkey and taught at Turkish universities for 20 years at the material time. It further stated that the applicant had indicated to the authorities that he was a collage artist who had been working in this field for several years, which was not disputed by the Court. It also noted that, in the present case, the applicant had been prosecuted for insulting the Prime Minister for displaying one of the collages inside and outside the domestic court building during a trial of a previous prosecution against another person due to exposure from that of the same collage during a previous event.
The Court considered that, in the context of its report, the applicant’s collage was essentially intended to formulate a political critique of, inter alia, the Turkish Prime Minister for his political choices on the international stage, in particular with regard to the US military and activities, including those taking place in Iraq. It considered that this project was undoubtedly part of a debate of public interest regarding the country’s foreign policy. It reminded in this case that Article 10 par. 2 of the Convention leaves no room for restrictions on freedom of expression in the field of political speech or issues of public interest.
The ECtHR also recalled that, in assessing the limits of admissible criticism, a distinction must be made between individuals and public figures.
The Court considered that this collage project took on the character of a political critique. In addition, the Court shared the claim of the national authorities that the depiction of the Prime Minister as a dog in a collage was likely to be considered humiliating by a part or the majority of Turkish society and create a certain concern among the citizens. It also recalled that offensive remarks may not fall within the scope of protecting freedom of expression when they amount to defamation, for example if insult is their sole purpose and, on the other hand, the use of vulgar descriptions is not in itself decisive to evaluate an offensive statement, because they may very well have a strictly informative purpose.
The Court, while noting with interest the references made to the latest conviction to the principles set out in its case-law, as well as to the rather extensive arguments and reasoning developed by the criminal court, could not, however, endorse the assessments and conclusions from this decision for the above reasons. It pointed out that that decision was mainly devoid of the proportionality of the criminal sanction imposed on the applicant, as well as of the examination of the deterrent effect that that sanction might have on the freedom of expression of the person concerned.
In the light of all the above, the Court has concluded that, in the circumstances of the case, the national authorities had not met sufficient balance of the criteria laid down in its case-law between the freedom of expression and the right of the opposing party regarding the respect of his private life. It considered that in any event there was no reasonable proportionality between the interference with the exercise of the applicant ‘s right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of the politician concerned.
It ruled by a majority with 6 against 1 that there had been a violation of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention).
Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage
