Genocide denial and freedom of expression in the Perinçek Case: A European overruling or a new approach to negationism?

La Corte europea dei Diritti dell'uomo è tornata, con la decisione resa nel caso Perinçek, ad occuparsi di negazionismo, giungendo a conclusioni in parte dissonanti con quelle rassegnate in precedenti sentenze.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has been called to rule about the legitimacy of a criminal conviction of a Turkish citizen for his statements denying the Armenian genocide. The decision of the Grand Chamber finds itself as one in a line of European judgements directed to solve the contrast between the criminalization of genocide denial and the freedom of expression. The decision in the Perinçek case appears to be rather peculiar. The peculiarity does not only reside in the conclusions of the Grand Chamber (that has found a breach of Article 10), but also in the way in which these conclusions have been reached. First of all, the Court demonstrates that it does not adhere to an aprioristic position, but rather it evaluates the extent of the limitations applicable to freedom of expression by a concrete balance of interests. Secondly, the Court adds a new element to the topic of the criminalization of negationism: the idea that – for a criminal sanction to be justified –the statement must be associated with an incitement to hatred or violence.