CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mai 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. May 1998 Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey - 21237/93 Judgment 25.5.1998 [GC] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Dissolution of a political party by the Constitutional Court: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability of Article 11 Political parties were a form of association essential to proper functioning of democracy – in view of importance of democracy in Convention system, there could be no doubt that political parties came within scope of Article   11. An association was not excluded from protection afforded by Convention simply because its activities were regarded by national authorities as undermining constitutional structures of State and calling for imposition of restrictions. B.   Compliance with Article 11 1.   Whether there was an interference Yes, as regards all three applicants. 2.   Whether the interference was justified (a)   “Prescribed by law” Common ground. (b)   Legitimate aim Protection of “national security”. (c)   “Necessary in a democratic society” Article 11 had also to be considered in light of Article 10 – political parties had essential role in ensuring pluralism and proper functioning of democracy. Statements of Chairman of SP on which Constitutional Court based its decision to dissolve party: contained invitation to people of Kurdish origin to rally together and assert certain political claims, but no call to use violence, rebel or otherwise reject democratic principles. Statements in issue also presented political programme aimed at establishing federal system in Turkey – fact that such a programme was considered incompatible with current principles and structures of Turkish State did not make it incompatible with rules of democracy – it was of essence of democracy to allow diverse political programmes to be proposed and debated, even those that called into question way a State was currently organised, provided that they did not harm democracy itself. Chairman of SP had been acquitted in National Security Courts, where he had been prosecuted in respect of same statements. Interference in question had been radical: SP had been dissolved with immediate and permanent effect, its assets liquidated and transferred ipso jure to the Treasury and its leaders banned from carrying on certain similar political activities – measures as severe as those could only be applied in most serious cases. It had not been established how, in spite of fact that in making them their author had declared attachment to democracy and expressed rejection of violence, statements in issue could be considered to have been in any way responsible for problems terrorism posed in Turkey – no need either to bring Article 17 into play. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLES 9, 10, 14 AND 18 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints related to same facts as those considered under Article   11. Conclusion : unnecessary to decide that issue (unanimously). III.   ARTICLES 1 AND 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Measures complained of were incidental effects of SP's dissolution. Conclusion : unnecessary to decide that issue (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION In view of conclusion concerning compliance with Article 11, unnecessary to examine that complaint. Conclusion : unnecessary to decide that issue (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Annulment of order for dissolution Court had no jurisdiction to order such a measure. B.   Damage, costs and expenses Pecuniary damage and costs and expenses: no evidence in support – claim dismissed. Non-pecuniary damage: assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants specified sum for non-pecuniary damage (unanimously).   © 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