- The first hearing of the annulment case filed for the film Rojbash, which was banned by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism with the decision that it is "not suitable for commercial circulation," was held in Ankara.
- MLSA emphasized that the banning of the film constitutes an interference with freedom of expression and that the ban continues despite favorable assessments in the expert report.
Büşra Genel
The first hearing of the annulment case filed by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) for the film Rojbash, directed by Özkan Küçük and telling the story of Kurdish theater actors coming together after 25 years, was held at Ankara 3rd Administrative Court, following the Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s decision that the film is “not suitable for commercial circulation.”
At the hearing of the case, for which MLSA undertook legal representation, lawyer Emine Özhasar from the MLSA Legal Unit, an MLSA observer, and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s lawyer Zeynep Berna Bozkır were present in the courtroom.
After the start of the hearing, lawyer Emine Özhasar, who was given the floor by the court board, began her statement by noting that although the banned film has been screened many times abroad, it has not been screened even once in Turkey. Özhasar continued her statement as follows:
“Our client produced this film over four years with limited financial means; the film was screened at international festivals abroad, but it has not been able to meet audiences even once in Turkey. The administrative act has directly targeted not only our client’s economic activity but also their artistic presence and freedom of expression.”
Stating that despite the content of the film being in Kurdish, no translator was present during the evaluation process, Özhasar said, “It is clear that none of the board members speak Kurdish, so it is unclear how the content evaluation of the film was even conducted. This situation strongly suggests that the film was banned because of its language.”
Reminding the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, Özhasar stated that completely banning a cinematic work is the most severe form of prior censorship and listed contradictions in the expert report. Özhasar continued as follows:
“The expert committee clearly determined that the film contains no elements of violence, aggression, hate speech, pornography, drug use, or anything that could negatively affect the mental health of children and youth. The report also clearly stated that the risk of the film having a lasting or serious negative impact on children and young people is low. Despite this, the report included suggestions such as imposing an 18+ age restriction or removing certain scenes, without specifying which scenes or dialogues.”
“Our client has suffered both significant financial losses and severe moral damage due to the banning of a work they devoted years of labor to, because of this unlawful act. These damages increase with each passing day.”
“For these reasons, considering both the favorable findings in the expert report and the case file as a whole, we request a ruling in favor of accepting our case.”
Zeynep Berna Bozkır, the lawyer representing the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, who was also given the floor by the court board, stated that there is nothing unconstitutional in the functioning of the board and claimed that the matters included in the expert report are unconstitutional.
After the court board stated that the decision would be notified in writing, the hearing was concluded.
What had happened?
Following the decision by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism that the film Rojbash was “not suitable for commercial circulation and screening,” the film was banned.
Upon the banning of the film, which tells the story of Kurdish theater actors coming together, MLSA applied to the Administrative Court requesting a stay of execution.
The court rejected the objection. Ankara Regional Administrative Court ruled for the continuation of the ban. After these objections remained inconclusive, MLSA filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court on January 29, 2025.
