Quick answer
In Perinçek v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 15 October 2015, application no. 27510/08), the European Court of Human Rights held — by ten votes to seven — that Switzerland violated Article 10 by convicting a politician for publicly denying that the 1915 events suffered by the Armenians constituted genocide. The Court found that his statements did not amount to incitement to hatred or violence, and that Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) did not apply.
Background and facts
The applicant, a Turkish politician and public figure, made statements at public events in Switzerland in which he described the characterisation of the 1915 events as “genocide” as an “international lie”. He was convicted by the Swiss courts under a provision penalising the denial or gross minimisation of genocide and crimes against humanity. He complained that his criminal conviction interfered with his freedom of expression.
The complaint
The applicant complained under Article 10 that his conviction was an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression. Switzerland argued, among other things, that Article 17 should bar the complaint as an abuse of rights.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court held that Article 17 did not apply, because the applicant’s statements — however provocative or offensive to the Armenian community — did not seek to stir up hatred or intolerance, did not display contempt for the victims, and were not aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. It distinguished the case from Holocaust denial, which in the specific historical and legal context of certain States can be seen as a form of incitement to racial hatred; here there was no comparable link.
Assessing the interference under Article 10, the Court weighed the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on a matter of public debate against the Armenians’ right to respect for the dignity of their ancestors, including their identity. It took into account that the statements concerned a matter of public interest, did not amount to a call for hatred or violence, and were made in a context far removed from the events; that there was no international-law duty on Switzerland to criminalise such denial; and that a criminal sanction was a disproportionate response. Striking the balance, the Court concluded that the criminal conviction was not necessary in a democratic society, in violation of Article 10.
The judgment
- by ten votes to seven, a violation of Article 10;
- by thirteen votes to four, that there were no grounds to apply Article 17.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Perinçek is a key authority on the limits of “memory laws” and the boundary between protected offensive speech and unprotected incitement to hatred. It clarifies that criminalising the denial of historical atrocities is compatible with Article 10 only where the speech amounts to incitement to hatred or violence, or where a specific historical and social context justifies it, and that a strong justification is needed for a criminal penalty.
What this means for applicants
- Article 10 protects offensive and provocative speech on matters of public debate that does not incite hatred or violence.
- Article 17 applies only to speech aimed at destroying Convention rights — not to every shocking statement.
- Criminal penalties for expression require particularly weighty justification.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Perinçek v. Switzerland decide?
The Grand Chamber held, by ten votes to seven, that convicting the applicant for denying that the 1915 events were genocide breached Article 10, because his statements did not incite hatred or violence and a criminal penalty was disproportionate.
Is this the same as Holocaust denial?
No. The Court distinguished Holocaust denial, which in certain historical and legal contexts can amount to incitement to racial hatred, from the statements in this case, where it found no comparable link.
What is Article 17?
Article 17 prohibits the abuse of Convention rights. The Court held it did not apply here, because the statements were not aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms of others.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Otegi Mondragon v. Spain
- The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom
- Delfi AS v. Estonia
- Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary
- Von Hannover v. Germany
- Handyside v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.