CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 17 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no.   41955/14 YEŞİLLER VE SOL GELECEK PARTİSİ against Turkey lodged on 21   May 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the Higher Electoral Council’s ( Yüksek Seçim Kurulu ) decisions of non-authorisation for the organisation of three provincial congresses of a newly founded political party called Yeşiller ve Sol Gelecek Partisi (Greens and the Left Party of the Future). The applicant political party’s requests for organising provincial party congresses in Ankara, Antalya and Artvin were rejected by the decisions of Regional Electoral Councils, on the grounds that in those cities, the number of district party branches that had been organised at local level was insufficient. The applicant’s appeals before the Higher Electoral Council, where it claimed that such a restriction was not prescribed by law, were rejected by the decisions dated 9   November 2013 (see, mutatis mutandis , Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi v.   Turkey , no.   19920/13 , §§   73-109, ECHR   2016 (extracts)).   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, in particular, a)     Was it prescribed by law? What is the relevant practice in the application of Article   36   (2) of Law no.   2820 on political parties and Article   14   (11) of Law no.   298 on the fundamental provisions governing elections and voter registration, regarding political parties’ requests’ that do not concern participating in the elections? (The Government are invited to submit copies of Higher Electoral Council decisions in comparable cases) b)     Did it pursue a legitimate aim? c)     Was it necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued? 2.     Did the applicant have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article   11, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?