According to the ECtHR, the fact that an investigation initiated against a person due to a statement made by them concludes with impunity does not prevent the violation of the right to freedom of expression. This is because the fear of being subjected to a similar investigation in the future has a chilling effect on the person regarding expressing their thoughts.
The fact that an intervention, which occurred in the form of initiating a judicial or administrative investigation or applying another measure targeting freedom of expression, was concluded with impunity by a decision such as non-prosecution or acquittal due to a reason stemming from procedure, substance, or the factual situation, does not alone prevent the violation of Article 10 of the ECHR. This is because any kind of investigation/measure that does not have a direct effect, but creates a threat for the person exercising freedom of expression of being subjected to an investigation, another measure, or sanction in the future, and therefore has a modifying or restrictive effect on the person’s behavior prospectively, is considered an intervention. For even the possibility of the same or a similar intervention being re-initiated in the future alone has a chilling effect (chilling effect) on the person.
It is clear that due to fear or anxiety of this nature, an individual will feel compelled to restrict or alter the expression and dissemination of their own information and thoughts, so as not to risk being subjected to the same investigation, restrictive measure, or another sanction again. Therefore, the fact that the judicial/administrative investigation or measure applied remains inconclusive, or that the given penalty has been lifted, would not be sufficient to eliminate the negative consequences of the interference with freedom of expression, and moreover, to prevent the violation of the right to freedom of expression. (See Altuğ Taner Akçam/Turkey, 2011, pr.68; Aktan/Turkey, pr.27-28; Döner and Others/Turkey, 2007, pr.86-89; Gülcü/Turkey, 2016, pr.99)) Book recommendation.
Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary for Individual Applications?
Even if judicial or administrative investigations concerning freedom of expression result in impunity, they can still be considered a violation according to the case law of the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights). This is because an individual may be deterred from expressing their thoughts due to the fear of being subjected to a similar investigation in the future. For this reason, it is of vital importance that the process, in both Constitutional Court (AYM) individual applications and ECtHR applications, is handled by an expert lawyer .
The individual application process requires not missing the application deadline, legally preparing the justifications, and making a strong defense based on precedents. Especially for individuals in Istanbul who have faced human rights violations, obtaining expert lawyer support when making an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) or the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) prevents loss of rights and increases the likelihood of the application being accepted.
It should not be forgotten that freedom of expression violations emerge not only through the penalties imposed but also through the “chilling effect” created by investigations launched. Therefore, making an individual application through a lawyer specialized in the field ensures that the process of seeking justice is carried out most effectively before both the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
