CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 6 September 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26166/10 Abdullah İŞNAÇ and others against Turkey lodged on 31 March 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a decision dated 31 December 2009, the Constitutional Court dissolved the Party for a Democratic Society ( Demokratik Toplum Partisi/DTP ) and banned some of its members, including the applicants, from becoming founding members, ordinary members, leaders or auditors of any other political party pursuant to Article 69 § 8 of the Constitution. Pointing out that the criminal proceedings, which had constituted one of the basis of the dissolution decision, had still been pending before the Court of Cassation, the applicants complained that the ancillary measure imposed by the Constitutional Court which banned them from undertaking any active duties in a political party, constituted a breach of Articles 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and   17 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the temporary measure, imposed on the applicants by the decision of the Constitutional Court, which banned them from becoming founding members, ordinary members, leaders or auditors of any other political party for five years constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association contrary to Article 11 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the fact that at the time when the Constitutional Court’s decision had been delivered, the criminal proceedings against the applicants were still pending, could the measure imposed on the applicants be considered as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?