CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 octobre 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 23 October 2000 Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey (dec.) - 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et al. Decision 3.10.2000 [Section III] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Dissolution of political party of Islamic persuasion, on the ground that it constituted a centre of activities against secularism and thus undermined democracy: admissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Constitutional proceedings concerning the dissolution of a political party: Article 6 inapplicable   The first applicant, “Refah Partisi” (the Prosperity Party – “ RP ”) was a pro-Islamic political party that was founded in 1983. It is represented by the second applicant, who at the material time was a Member of Parliament and the chairman of RP . The third and fourth applicants were at that time vice-chairmen of the party. After the parliamentary elections in 1995 the RP became the leading political party in Turkey and came to power in June 1996 by forming a coalition government with a centre-right party, Dogru Yol. In May 1997 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Constitutional Court brought an action for the dissolution of the RP on the ground that it constituted a “centre” ( mihrak ) of activities, contrary to the principle of secularism. On 9 January 1998 the Constitutional Court set aside as unconstitutional a provision in the Law on Political Parties providing that a political party could not be regarded as a centre of activities against the fundamental principles of the Republic unless its members had previously been convicted in criminal proceedings. On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court, relying on the Law on Political Parties, dissolved the RP on the ground that it had become a “centre of activities against the principle of secularism” thereby undermining the democratic order, and declared that the party’s assets had been transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. As an additional penalty, it declared that the three applicants, who were individuals, had forfeited their position as Members of Parliament and were prohibited from founding, being a member, leader or treasurer of any new political party for a period of five years. The judgment was published in the Official Gazette in February 1998. Admissible under Articles 9, 10, 11, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention, and Articles 1 and 3 of Protocol No. 1. Inadmissible under Articles 6 and 7: With regard to the alleged denial of a fair trial and a public hearing, which raised the issue of the applicability of Article 6 to the constitutional proceedings in issue, it had to be noted that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court concerned a dispute over the RP ’s right to pursue its political activity as a political party. It therefore constituted a perfect example of a political right which, as such, did not qualify for protection under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The ban on the applicant’s becoming founders or leaders of a new party also constituted a restriction on the political rights of those concerned which could not come within Article 6 § 1, whether as a dispute over civil rights or as a criminal charge. While the dissolution of the RP had admittedly entailed the automatic transfer of its assets to the treasury such that a dispute could have arisen over a pecuniary right (and thus a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1), the Court found that the subject-matter of the dispute before the Constitutional Court had not been RP ’s right to enjoy its possessions as none of the parties had contested the transfer in the constitutional proceedings or in any other proceedings. Consequently, the relevant proceedings did not concern a dispute over the applicants’ civil rights and obligations or a criminal charge against them within the meaning of Article 6 § 1: incompatible ratione materiae . With regard to the complaint under Article 7, which prohibited the retrospective application of the criminal law, the Court noted that the dissolution of the RP and the effects of that dissolution on the political rights of the other applicants did not amount to criminal penalties. Consequently, that provision was not applicable in the case before the Court: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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