Tweet
European Court holds hearing on Perinçek v. Switzerland case
13:02, 28 Jan 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan
The hearing of the case Perinçek v. Switzerland has started at the
European Court of Human Rights.
Armenia is represented at the Court by Amal Clooney, Geoffrey
Robertson, Toby Collis and Armenia's Prosecutor General Gevorg
Kostanyan.
A group of Armenians is protesting in front of the European Court, the
European Federation for Justice and Development reports.
The applicant, DoÄ?u Perinçek, is a Turkish national who was born in
1942 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). Being a doctor of laws and the
Chairman of the Turkish Workers' Party, he participated in various
conferences in Switzerland in May, July and September 2005, during
which he publicly denied that the Ottoman Empire had perpetrated the
crime of genocide against the Armenian people in 1915 and the
following years. He described the idea of an Armenian genocide as an
`international lie'.
The association `Switzerland- Armenia' filed a criminal complaint
against him on 15 July 2005. On 9 March 2007 the Lausanne Police Court
found Mr Perinçek guilty of racial discrimination within the meaning
of the Swiss Criminal Code, finding that his motives were of a racist
tendency and did not contribute to the historical debate. Mr Perinçek
lodged an appeal that was dismissed by the Criminal Cassation Division
of the Vaud Cantonal Court.
In that court's view, the Armenian genocide, like the Jewish genocide,
was a proven historical fact, recognised by the Swiss legislature on
the date of the adoption of Article 261bis of the Criminal Code. The
courts did not therefore need to refer to the work of historians in
order to accept its existence. The Cassation Division emphasised that
Mr Perinçek had only denied the characterisation as genocide without
calling into question the existence of the massacres and deportations
of Armenians. The Federal Court dismissed a further appeal by Mr
Perinçek in a judgment of 12 December 2007.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Mr Perinçek complains that the Swiss
courts breached his freedom of expression. He argues, in particular,
that Article 261bis, paragraph 4, of the Swiss Criminal Code is not
sufficiently foreseeable 3 Under Article 43 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber
judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request
that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.
In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case
raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application
of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general
importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final
judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject
the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise
Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period
or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a
request to refer.5 in its effect, that his conviction was not
justified by the pursuit of a legitimate aim and that the alleged
breach of his freedom of expression was not `necessary in a democratic
society'.
In its Chamber judgment of 17 December 2013 the Court held, by five
votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the
Convention. It took the view that the grounds given by the Swiss
authorities to justify Mr Perinçek's conviction were not all pertinent
and that, taken as a whole, they proved insufficient. The Court
observed that the domestic authorities had not shown, in particular,
that the applicant's conviction met a `pressing social need' or that
it was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the
honour and feelings of the descendants of the victims of the
atrocities which dated back to 1915 and the following years.
The Court therefore found that the domestic authorities had
overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them in the present
case, which had arisen in the context of a debate of undeniable public
interest.
On 2 June the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of
the Swiss Government.
http://www.armradio.am/en/2015/01/28/european-court-holds-hearing-on-perincek-v-switzerland-case/
13:02, 28 Jan 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan
The hearing of the case Perinçek v. Switzerland has started at the
European Court of Human Rights.
Armenia is represented at the Court by Amal Clooney, Geoffrey
Robertson, Toby Collis and Armenia's Prosecutor General Gevorg
Kostanyan.
A group of Armenians is protesting in front of the European Court, the
European Federation for Justice and Development reports.
The applicant, DoÄ?u Perinçek, is a Turkish national who was born in
1942 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). Being a doctor of laws and the
Chairman of the Turkish Workers' Party, he participated in various
conferences in Switzerland in May, July and September 2005, during
which he publicly denied that the Ottoman Empire had perpetrated the
crime of genocide against the Armenian people in 1915 and the
following years. He described the idea of an Armenian genocide as an
`international lie'.
The association `Switzerland- Armenia' filed a criminal complaint
against him on 15 July 2005. On 9 March 2007 the Lausanne Police Court
found Mr Perinçek guilty of racial discrimination within the meaning
of the Swiss Criminal Code, finding that his motives were of a racist
tendency and did not contribute to the historical debate. Mr Perinçek
lodged an appeal that was dismissed by the Criminal Cassation Division
of the Vaud Cantonal Court.
In that court's view, the Armenian genocide, like the Jewish genocide,
was a proven historical fact, recognised by the Swiss legislature on
the date of the adoption of Article 261bis of the Criminal Code. The
courts did not therefore need to refer to the work of historians in
order to accept its existence. The Cassation Division emphasised that
Mr Perinçek had only denied the characterisation as genocide without
calling into question the existence of the massacres and deportations
of Armenians. The Federal Court dismissed a further appeal by Mr
Perinçek in a judgment of 12 December 2007.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Mr Perinçek complains that the Swiss
courts breached his freedom of expression. He argues, in particular,
that Article 261bis, paragraph 4, of the Swiss Criminal Code is not
sufficiently foreseeable 3 Under Article 43 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber
judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request
that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.
In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case
raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application
of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general
importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final
judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject
the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise
Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period
or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a
request to refer.5 in its effect, that his conviction was not
justified by the pursuit of a legitimate aim and that the alleged
breach of his freedom of expression was not `necessary in a democratic
society'.
In its Chamber judgment of 17 December 2013 the Court held, by five
votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the
Convention. It took the view that the grounds given by the Swiss
authorities to justify Mr Perinçek's conviction were not all pertinent
and that, taken as a whole, they proved insufficient. The Court
observed that the domestic authorities had not shown, in particular,
that the applicant's conviction met a `pressing social need' or that
it was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the
honour and feelings of the descendants of the victims of the
atrocities which dated back to 1915 and the following years.
The Court therefore found that the domestic authorities had
overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them in the present
case, which had arisen in the context of a debate of undeniable public
interest.
On 2 June the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of
the Swiss Government.
http://www.armradio.am/en/2015/01/28/european-court-holds-hearing-on-perincek-v-switzerland-case/