Constitutional Court finds rights violation in public ad ban on Korkusuz newspaper

Click to read the article in Turkish

The Constitutional Court has ruled that a public ad ban imposed on daily Korkusuz because of an article criticizing the government violated the freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

The Press Advertising Agency (BİK), the state agency responsible for placing public ads and announcements on newspapers, had imposed a one-day ban on the newspaper because of the article titled "This is how they waste the nation's money," which was published on May 3, 2015.

The agency has been criticized by rights groups of using its authority to take punitive mewasures against press outlets criticial of the government.

CLICK - Five newspapers got 88 percent of ad penalties by Press Advertising Agency

CLICK - 'Financial censorship': Public ad ban on Evrensel newspaper in place for 483 days

"The worry of being subjected to such a financial sanction has a disruptive effect on persons and there is a risk that the person will eventually refrain from expressing thoughts or engaging in press activities," the court said in its judgment.

"Especially for periodic publications, the economic possibilities are mostly provided by the publication of public announcements and ads," it stated, noting that the BİK's authority to impose fines is not an instrument of sanctions but a regulation aimed at improving the ethical quality of press outlets.

An ad ban should be the "last resort"

"Therefore, it is of vital importance in terms of press freedom that the BİK strictly implements the balancing criteria for the complaints it receives and considers the mentioned type of interference as a last resort," said the court.

"As a result, no sufficient justification could be put forward that the applicant's punishment by a decision of an ad cut due to the news published met a compulsory social need," the court concluded.

The ad ban was in violation of articles 26 and 28 about the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, according to the Constitutional Court.

While giving a judgment in favor of the newspaper, it rejected its request for compensation. (HA/VK)