CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 avril 2007

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 96 April 2007 Kavakçı v. Turkey - 71907/01 Judgment 5.4.2007 [Section III] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Temporary limitations on the applicant’s political rights following the dissolution of his party by the Constitutional Court: violation Facts : In April 1999 the applicant had been elected to the Turkish Grand National Assembly as a member of Fazilet Partisi (the Virtue Party). In May 1999 she was stripped of her Turkish nationality under the Nationality Act, on the ground that she had acquired US nationality without the prior approval of the Turkish authorities. After marrying a Turkish national in October 1999 she re-acquired Turkish nationality. In March 2001 the President of the National Assembly stripped the applicant of her status as member of Parliament, as the decision depriving her of Turkish nationality had become final. In June 2001 the Constitutional Court dissolved Fazilet Partisi on the ground that the party, which had based its political programme in particular on the issue of wearing the Islamic headscarf, had become a centre of activities contrary to the constitutional principle of secularism. In arriving at its conclusion, the court took account of the actions and statements of the party’s Chair and some of its leaders and members. The applicant was accused of making certain statements in public and of taking an oath before the National Assembly wearing an Islamic headscarf, at the instigation of members and leaders of the party. As an ancillary measure, the Constitutional Court banned the applicant (and four other party members) from becoming founder members, ordinary members, leaders or auditors of any other political party for five years. Two members were removed from their parliamentary seats. Law : The temporary restrictions imposed on the applicant’s political rights when Fazilet was dissolved had been intended to preserve the secular nature of the Turkish political system. Given the importance of that principle for democracy in Turkey, the measure had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. As to whether the sanction had been proportionate, the constitutional provisions concerning the dissolution of political parties in force at the relevant time had been very broad in their scope. All actions and statements by party members could be imputed to the party for the purposes of finding the latter to be a centre of activities contrary to the Constitution and ordering its dissolution. No distinction was made according to the degree of involvement of members in the activities in question. In the instant case some party members, including its Chair and deputy Chair, whose situation had been comparable to that of the applicant, had not had sanctions imposed on them. The Court considered that the sanction imposed on the applicant had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Non-pecuniary damage – finding of a violation sufficient.   © 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