According to the ECtHR, the impunity with which an investigation launched against an individual due to a statement they made ends, does not prevent the violation of the right to freedom of expression. Because the fear of facing a similar investigation in the future has a chilling effect on the individual regarding expressing their thoughts.
The fact that an intervention, taking the form of initiating a judicial or administrative investigation or applying another measure against freedom of expression, has been concluded with impunity, such as a decision of non-prosecution or acquittal, due to a reason stemming from procedural or substantive grounds or from the factual situation, does not, by itself, prevent a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR. Because any kind of investigation/measure, which does not have a direct effect but creates a threat for the individual 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. Indeed, even the mere possibility of the same or a similar intervention being reinitiated in the future, by itself, creates a chilling effect (chilling effect) on the individual.
It is clear that due to such fear or anxiety, an individual will feel compelled to limit or alter the expression and dissemination of their own knowledge and thoughts, in order to avoid the risk of 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)
Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary in Individual Applications Concerning the Right to Freedom of Expression?
Successfully presenting an interference with freedom of expression before the Constitutional Court (AYM) or the ECtHR is not limited to merely describing the victimization. The following elements are necessary for a successful individual application:
Establishing a legal link between the concrete event and the interference, Clear proof of the **chilling effect** of the investigation or measure on the individual, **Preparation of a technical petition** in accordance with the case-law of the ECtHR and AYM, Correct presentation of previous violation decisions that align with the content of the event
This process requires serious legal analysis and experience. An expert lawyer effectively explains, in legal terms, not only the narrative of the incident but also why it constitutes a violation from the perspective of freedom of expression. Indeed, especially in freedom of expression applications, the chance of success is much higher in individual applications prepared with the support of an expert lawyer. Otherwise, a justified complaint may be rejected due to technical deficiencies or incorrect legal assessment.
