CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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   854 29.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SOBACI v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sobacı v. Turkey (application no. 26733/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the forfeiture of the applicant’s parliamentary seat. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Bekir Sobacı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Tokat (Turkey).   In April 1999 he was elected as a member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly from a list put forward by Fazilet Partisi (“the Virtue Party”). The Constitutional Court ordered the dissolution of the party in June 2001 on account of the actions and comments of several of its members, including the applicant.   Relying on Article 69 § 6 of the Constitution, it held that the party had become a centre of anti-secular activities and that its dissolution met a pressing social need. It observed, in particular, that Fazilet Partisi had based its political programme on the issue of the Islamic headscarf, despite the fact that in a previous judgment the court had ruled that speeches encouraging the wearing of headscarves in schools and public institutions contravened the principle of secularism. It also held that in their public speeches, members of the party had incited hatred against the public authorities by describing the prohibition of the headscarf in schools and in buildings occupied by administrative authorities as an infringement of rights and freedoms and as persecution.   As an additional penalty, the Constitutional Court ruled that the applicant and another member of parliament should forfeit their parliamentary seats. It also banned them and three other party members from becoming founding members, ordinary members, leaders or auditors of any other political party for a period of five years.   The applicant stood in the parliamentary elections in November 2002 as an independent candidate, but was not elected.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 May 2002 and declared partly admissible on 1 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicant complained about the forfeiture of his parliamentary seat and the restrictions imposed on his political rights following Fazilet Partisi’s dissolution.   The Court considered it appropriate to examine all his complaints under Article   3 of Protocol   No.   1 alone.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted that the measure complained of had been designed to preserve the secular nature of the Turkish political system and had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It remained to be determined whether it had been proportionate to the aims pursued.   To that end, the Court considered it necessary to have regard to the constitutional provisions on the dissolution of a political party in Turkey. The scope of Article 69 § 6, as worded at the material time, had been very broad. All acts and comments by a party’s members could be attributed to the party as a whole as a basis for holding that it was a centre of unconstitutional activities and dissolving it. No provision had been made for any distinction between different degrees of involvement in the activities in question. The Court observed in that connection that in the applicant’s case certain members of Fazilet Partisi, including its chairman and vice-chairman, who had been in a similar position to the applicant, had not received any penalties.   The nature and severity of interferences were also factors to be taken into account when assessing their proportionality. In that connection, the Court had previously held that forfeiture of a parliamentary seat was an extremely severe penalty.   It concluded that the applicant’s forfeiture of parliamentary office could not be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The measure had impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right to be elected and to sit in parliament and had infringed the sovereign power of the electorate who had voted him into office. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court further held that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the restriction of his political rights.   Article 9, 10 and 11   The Court considered it unnecessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 11.     ***   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) 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 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.