Judgment of the ECHR of 21 November 2017 in the case of Tarman v. Turkey (application No. 63903/10).
In 2010, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, the complaint complained of the applicant for evading the State from protecting her private life from interference by a third party was successfully considered. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
Two articles were written about the applicant in the newspaper, in which she was described as a suicide bomber, who was preparing an explosion, her name was called and her photo was published. Her subsequent demands for compensation for damage to the two newspapers were rejected on the grounds that the content of the contested articles "corresponded to the data available at the date of their publication."
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant complained not of the actions of the respondent Government but of the State's failure to protect her private life from interference by a third party. In the context of the State's positive obligations under article 8 of the Convention, the Turkish authorities had to compare the applicant's right to respect for her private life and the right of the opposing party to freedom of expression in accordance with the criteria established in the Court's case-law. However, a proper comparison of rights in the present case was not carried out:
(i) the courts simply referred to the data, based their findings on the documents of the ongoing criminal investigation of the applicant at the time of publication, without giving a specific classification (statement as fact or value judgment) of the content of the contested articles;
(ii) the decisions did not provide a satisfactory answer to the question as to whether the freedom of the press in the present case justified an interference with the applicant's right to defend her reputation, which followed from the content and form of the contested articles, in which the applicant's identity was named, her photo was published, and she was described as a dangerous terrorist, although her suspicions of criminal investigation were of a different nature.
The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.