CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   814 21.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 21 November 2007 at 9 a.m. , in the case of Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey (application no. 10226/03).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site http://www.echr.coe.int .     The applicants   Mehmet Yumak and Resul Sadak are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1959 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey). Mr Yumak is self-employed and Mr Sadak is Mayor of Idil.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns Turkish electoral law, according to which a party must obtain at least 10   % of the national vote in parliamentary elections in order to win seats in the National Assembly.   In the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 the applicants stood as candidates for the political party DEHAP (Democratic People’s Party) in the province of Şırnak.   As a result of the ballot, DEHAP obtained approximately 45.95   % of the vote (47,449 votes) in Şırnak province, but did not secure 10   % of the vote nationally. The applicants were not elected, in accordance with section 33 of the Election of Members of Parliament Act (Law No.   2939), which states that “parties may not win seats unless they obtain, nationally, more than 10% of the votes validly cast”. Consequently, of the three parliamentary seats allotted to Şırnak province, two were filled by the AKP (Justice and Development Party), which obtained 14.05   % of the vote (14,460   votes), and the third by an independent candidate, Mr   Tatar, who obtained 9.69   % of the vote (9,914   votes).   Complaint   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants submit that setting a threshold of 10% of the vote in parliamentary elections interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people in their choice of the legislature. Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 March 2003 and declared admissible on 9 May 2006.   A hearing on the merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg on 5   September 2006.   In its Chamber judgment of 30 January 2007 (press release no. 70) the Court held by five votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   On 21 April 2007 the applicants requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 9 July 2007 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran) Nina Vajić (Croatian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Renate Jaeger (German), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger ,   Jurisconsult .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Münci Özmen , co-Agent ,   Hüsrev Ünler , Aslıhan Özdemir , Vedia. Sirmen , Yaprak Renda , Özden Gazialem , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Tahir Elçi , Counsel,   Tony Fischer , Elizabeth Frank , Advisers .   Resul Sadak will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date. [2]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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 European Convention on Human Rights, 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.