Background
Müyesser Uğur, an investigative journalist covering military and national-security affairs, published six articles addressing Türkiye’s military operations in Libya and other defence-related issues. After investigators intercepted calls between Uğur and E.B., a military sergeant suspected of leaking confidential information, she was arrested and charged with disclosing information relating to the State’s security and political interests.
Uğur was held in pre-trial detention from June until November 2020. The domestic trial court later found that only one article contained protected information: the identity of the commander designated to coordinate Türkiye’s military operation in Libya. It convicted her of obtaining and disclosing prohibited information, while acquitting her of the original State-security offences. Her domestic proceedings remained pending before the Court of Cassation as of the latest information available to the European Court.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Uğur’s pre-trial detention violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Five of the six articles disclosed neither confidential information nor State secrets, so the magistrates’ courts had not supplied relevant and sufficient reasons for detaining her in connection with them.
The sixth article contributed to a public-interest debate about Türkiye’s military involvement in Libya, although identifying the commander during an active deployment was capable of causing considerable damage to national security and affecting his safety. The domestic courts nevertheless failed to evaluate the article in its full context, concretely assess the asserted risks, consider that officials had already disclosed the commander’s rank, or balance national-security interests against Uğur’s and the public’s expression and information rights.
Detention for approximately five months was an excessive measure with a significant chilling effect on journalism and upset the required fair balance. Having resolved the principal legal issue under Article 10, the Court found no need to examine separately the merits of Uğur’s Article 5 complaints. It awarded her EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-trial detention based on journalistic publications is an interference with Article 10 and must be justified by relevant, sufficient, and case-specific reasons.
- Confidential military information may warrant national-security protection, but courts must concretely assess the likely harm and balance it against the article’s contribution to public debate.
- Detaining a journalist for about five months was disproportionate where domestic courts failed to perform that balancing exercise and five of the six cited articles contained no confidential information.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that national-security classifications do not end the Article 10 inquiry. Even when disclosure could genuinely harm military interests or an individual’s safety, domestic courts must examine the publication’s context, public-interest value, existing public information, and actual risks before imposing coercive measures.
It also underscores that pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure of last resort. Because imprisonment can intimidate journalists and silence scrutiny of the armed forces, its severity and broader chilling effect carry substantial weight in the proportionality analysis.