On February 2, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled [3] (only available in French) that the judgment against a Turkish Member of Parliament in a defamation suit violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights [4] (Convention).  According to the press release [5], Yücel Erdener served as a member of the Turkish parliament in 2002, when she commented on the then Prime Minister’s widely discussed health issues. A Turkish court committed Erdener to stand trial after the prosecutor had refused to indict arguing that “the mere fact of reporting on rumours in the National Assembly concerning the Prime Minister’s health did not constitute a criminal offence.” The university hospital where the Prime Minister was undergoing treatment brought a civil action against her, alleging that her statement—“They nearly drove him to his death”— damaged its reputation. The Court ruled that upholding the defamation claim was disproportionate, as her remarks had been made in a private conversation with the journalist. Additionally, the subject “had received broad media coverage in Turkey,” the manner of treatment had been criticized by both the media and parliamentarians, and her statements concerned “rumours circulating in a climate of political tension in the National Assembly.” As such, the Court ruled that they “amounted to a personal opinion criticising the Prime Minister’s medical treatment, and . . . had a sufficient factual basis.” Regarding the university hospital’s claim, the Court noted that “the domestic courts had not verified whether the offending remark had, in itself, particularly damaged the university’s reputation and had not duly taken into consideration Ms Erdener’s defence arguments to the effect that her remarks had a sufficient factual basis and had been made in her capacity as MP.” Therefore, the Court concluded that the Turkish courts had failed to properly balance Erdener’s right to freedom of expression and the need to safeguard the university’s reputation, and had thus disproportionately interfered with her rights under the Convention.