CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .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   209 5.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS KAVAKÇI v. TURKEY, SILAY v. TURKEY and ILICAK v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Kavakçi v. Turkey (application no. 71907/01), Sılay v. Turkey (no. 8691/02) and Ilıcak v. Turkey (no. 15394/02).   The Court held, unanimously in the three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, it awarded 4,000 euros (EUR) to Ms Kavakçi, EUR 3,000 to Mr Silay and EUR 5,000 to Ms Ilıcak for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Merve Safa Kavakçi, Mehmet Sılay and Nazlı Ilıcak are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1949 and 1944 respectively. They live in Ankara, with the exception of Ms Ilıcak, who lives in Istanbul. They are former members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and members of Fazilet Partisi (the Virtue Party).   Founded in December 1997, Fazilet Partisi obtained some 24% of the vote in the 1999 municipal elections and almost 15.5% of the vote in the general election of the same year. When it was dissolved in 2001, it was an opposition party with 111 members of parliament.   In May 1999 Principal State Counsel applied to the Constitutional Court for an order dissolving Fazilet , on the ground that it had become a “centre” of activities contrary to the principle of secularism and was a continuation of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party), a party which had been permanently dissolved. He argued in particular that, whenever they spoke in public, Mr Kutan, the party chairman, and the other party leaders and members advocated the wearing of Islamic headscarves in State universities and premises belonging to public authorities, despite the Constitutional Court ruling that that infringed the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution.   In support of his application, Principal State Counsel referred in particular to certain actions and statements by the applicants. For instance, he cited the book written by Mr Sılay, entitled News from Parliament , which was published in 1998 and was seized following a judicial decision. He accused Ms Kavakçi of having taken an oath before the National Assembly wearing an Islamic headscarf, and Ms Ilıcak of having stated on television that Ms Kavakçi had been nominated by the members and leadership of Fazilet to raise the issue of Islamic headscarves in the National Assembly.   State Counsel also applied to have Ms Kavakçi and Ms Ilıcak, who had both recently been elected to the National Assembly, stripped of their status as members of parliament.   On 13 May 1999 Ms Kavakçi was stripped of her Turkish nationality under section 25 (a) of Law no. 403 on nationality, on the ground that she had acquired US nationality without the prior agreement of the Turkish authorities. Her appeals against that decision were unsuccessful. After marrying a Turkish national in October 1999 she acquired Turkish nationality again on that basis. The Speaker of the National Assembly removed her parliamentary status in March 2001.   In a judgment of 22 June 2001 the Constitutional Court dissolved Fazilet , on the ground that the party, which had based its political programme on the question of wearing of the Islamic headscarf, had become a “centre of activities contrary to the principle of secularism”. It based its decision on Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution and sections 101 and 103 of Law no. 2820 on political parties. In arriving at its conclusion, it took account of the actions and statements of certain leaders and members of the party, including the applicants. As an ancillary measure under Article 69 § 9 of the Constitution, the Court banned Ms   Kavakçi, Mr Sılay and Ms Ilıcak from becoming founder members, ordinary members, leaders or auditors of any other political party for five years. Ms Ilıcak was also removed from her parliamentary seat.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application in Kavakçi v. Turkey was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 May 2001, the application in Sılay v. Turkey was lodged on 4 January 2002 and the application in Ilıcak v. Turkey was lodged on 26 February 2002. They were declared admissible on 30 June 2005.   A public hearing on the three cases was heard at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 13 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that the dissolution of the Fazilet party had infringed Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In the cases of Sılay and Ilıcak , the applicants also considered that they had been victims of a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Ilıcak also complained that she had been unfairly deprived of the benefit of her parliamentary remuneration. In addition, in the case of Kavakçi , the applicant alleged that there had been a violation of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted that the temporary restrictions imposed on the applicants’ political rights had been intended to preserve the secular nature of the Turkish political system. Given the importance of that principle for democracy in Turkey, it considered that the measure had pursued legitimate aims, namely the prevention of disorder and protection of the rights and freedoms of others.   The Court further noted that Article 69 § 6 of the Turkish Constitution, as applicable at the relevant time, had a very wide scope. All actions and statements by party members could be imputed to the party in question for the purpose of considering the latter as a centre of activities contrary to the Constitution and for ruling on its dissolution, irrespective of the individual members’ involvement in the party’s activities. Thus, some party members, particularly its president and vice-president, who were in a situation comparable to that of the applicants, had not had restrictions imposed on them.   Finally, the Court considered that the sanctions imposed on the applicants were serious and could not be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in all three cases. Other articles   The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the other complaints raised by the applicants.     ***   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.   [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.