CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mars 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 84 March 2006 İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği and Others v. Turkey - 46257/99 Judgment 2.3.2006 [Section III] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Requirement to obtain ministerial authorisation for participating in association meetings abroad:   violation   Facts : The application was lodged by the association İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği (Izmir Association against War) and by three Turkish nationals. In 1994 the applicants allowed some members of the association to travel overseas on the association’s behalf. Some members attended a meeting in Germany organised by Greenpeace and a meeting of a young lawyers’ association. The president represented the association at a meeting of international conscientious objectors in Colombia and a meeting of anti-war campaigners in Brazil. In 1996 the applicants received criminal convictions for failing to request permission to leave the country. Their convictions were based on the 1983 Associations Act (Law no. 2908), which required members or representatives of Turkish associations wishing to travel overseas at the invitation of foreign associations or organisations to obtain prior authorisation from the Interior Ministry. The applicants received prison sentences which were commuted into fines. Law : Article 11 – The applicants’ convictions had been based on section 43 of Law no. 2908 and had therefore been “prescribed by law”. According to the Government, the interference had pursued legitimate aims, namely “national security” and “public safety”. The Court was not convinced by that argument. The impugned measure had amounted to general surveillance of the members of associations wishing to travel overseas. However, the meetings in question had concerned conscientious objectors, whose peaceful intentions were beyond dispute. That was problematic in an interdependent world in which associations’ activities were interlinked and had international ramifications. Given the role of associations, measures of the kind taken against them affected freedom of association and hence democracy in the country concerned. Even assuming that the authorisation from the Interior Ministry was designed to protect the safety of Turkish citizens travelling abroad, such protection, surprisingly, applied only to Turkish citizens who were members of an association. Furthermore, the measure in question involved seeking authorisation rather than just giving notification. The applicants were not public servants and were therefore not bound by any duty of discretion. Moreover, the Contracting States could not, in the name of protecting “national security” or “public safety”, take just any measure they happened to deem appropriate. No other member State of the Council of Europe possessed legislation similar to that at issue, which had since been repealed. In short, the restriction could not be regarded as pursuing the legitimate aims set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 11, namely the protection of national security and public safety. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants specified sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes