CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   278 3.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DEMOKRATİK KİTLE PARTİSİ AND ELÇI v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Demokratik Kitle Partisi and Elçi v. Turkey (application no. 51290/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the dissolution in 1999 of the DKP, a political party.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 15,000 euros (EUR) jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are the DKP (“Demokratik Kitle Partisi”, the Democratic People’s Party), a political party founded in January 1997, and Şerafettin Elçi, a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Cankaya (Turkey), who was president of the party at the relevant time.   In June 1997 the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation applied to the Constitutional Court seeking to have the DKP dissolved, on the ground that the party had undermined the integrity of the State. He considered that certain statements to the press by the party’s president and the party’s programme were in breach of the Constitution and the Law on the regulation of political parties.   On 26 February 1999 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the DKP. It noted, in particular, that the party’s programme alleged the existence within Turkish territory of minorities founded on differences in national culture, membership of a race or language. The court considered that the DKP was seeking to destroy the integrity of the nation.   Publication of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in the Official Gazette in November 2001 had the effect of prohibiting the party’s founders and leaders from exercising similar functions in any other political grouping for a period of five years.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 24 August 1999 and declared partly inadmissible on 24 March 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants alleged that the dissolution of the party had been in breach of their rights as guaranteed by Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention, and of Articles 1 (protection of property) and 3 (right to free elections) of Protocol No. 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 The Court noted that the disputed sections of the DKP’s programme contained an analysis of the Kurdish question in Turkey and criticism of the manner in which the Government was fighting against separatist activities. It accepted that the principles defended by the DKP were not, as such, contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy.   As the DKP did not advocate any policy that could have undermined the democratic regime in Turkey and did not urge or seek to justify the use of force for political ends, its dissolution could not reasonably be said to have met a “pressing social need” and thus be “necessary in a democratic society”.   Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Other articles The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 9, 10, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.         ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.