CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 janvier 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s92848351 { width:23.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .sAF94470A { width:21.56pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; display:inline-block } .s8F3A89E4 { width:22.12pt; 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. January 1998 United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey - 19392/92 Judgment 30.1.1998 [GC] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Dissolution of a political party by the Constitutional Court: violation I.   ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Whether Article 11 was applicable Wording of Article 11: showed that trade unions were but one example among others of form in which right to freedom of association could be exercised. 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 were 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 – Article 1 of Convention: made no distinction as to type of rule or measure concerned and did not exclude any part of member States’ “jurisdiction” from scrutiny under Convention – political and institutional organisation of member States had accordingly to respect rights and principles enshrined in Convention – compromise between requirements of defending democratic society and individual rights: inherent in system of Convention. Protection afforded by Article 11: lasted for an association’s entire life and dissolution of an association by a country’s authorities had accordingly to satisfy requirements of paragraph   2. B.   Compliance with Article 11 1.   Whether there had been an interference With rights of all three applicants. 2.   Whether interference was justified (a)   “Prescribed by law”: not disputed. (b)   Legitimate aim: protection of “national security”. (c)   “Necessary in a democratic society” (i)   General principles Article 11 had also to be considered in light of Article 10 – fact that their activities formed part of a collective exercise of freedom of expression in itself entitled political parties to seek protection of Articles 10 and 11. Political parties made irreplaceable contribution to political debate, which was at very core of concept of democratic society. Democracy: without doubt a fundamental feature of “European public order” – Preamble to Convention: established very clear connection between Convention and democracy – democracy: appeared to be only political model contemplated by Convention and, accordingly, only one compatible with it – Court had identified certain provisions of Convention as being characteristic of democratic society. Exceptions set out in Article 11: to be construed strictly where political parties were concerned – only limited margin of appreciation, which went hand in hand with rigorous European supervision. (ii)   Application of principles to the present case TBKP had been dissolved even before it had been able to start its activities, solely on basis of its constitution and programme. Political party’s choice of name: could not in principle justify a measure as drastic as dissolution, in absence of other relevant and sufficient circumstances – absence of any concrete evidence to show that in choosing to call itself “communist”, TBKP had opted for policy that represented real threat to Turkish society or Turkish State. TBKP’s programme in so far as it concerned citizens of Kurdish origin – no justification for hindering a political group solely because it sought to debate in public situation of part of State’s population and to take part in nation’s political life in order to find, according to democratic rules, solutions capable of satisfying everyone concerned. No evidence enabling Court to conclude, in absence of any activity by TBKP, that party had borne any responsibility for problems which terrorism posed in Turkey – no need to bring Article 17 into play. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLES 9, 10, 14 AND 18 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints not pursued in proceedings before Court. Conclusion : not necessary to decide this issue (unanimously). III.   ARTICLES 1 AND 3 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 Measures complained of: incidental effects of TBKP’s dissolution. Conclusion : not necessary to decide this issue (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage TBKP: no causal link with violation found. Mr Sargın and Mr Yağcı: finding of a violation constituted sufficient compensation. B.   Costs and expenses Awarded in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants specified sum for costs and expenses (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