CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDCD9A5E { margin-left:13.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s48E6BF88 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     191   9.4.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF YAZAR, KARATAŞ, AKSOY AND THE PEOPLE’S LABOUR PARTY (HEP) v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its judgment [1] (which is in French only) in the case of Yazar, Karataş, Aksoy and the People’s Labour Party (HEP) v.   Turkey (applications nos. 22723/93, 22724/93 and 22725/93).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of assembly and association); that there was no need to determine whether there had been violations of Articles 9 (freedom of thought), 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention; that Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) was not applicable in the case.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each of the three applicants 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, making EUR 30,000 in total, and EUR 10,000 to the applicants jointly for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The HEP ( Halkin Emeği Partisi – the People’s Labour Party) was founded in 1990. At the material time, Feridun Yazar was its chairman, Ahmet Karataş its vice-chairman and Ibrahim Aksoy its secretary general. All three are Turkish nationals who live in Ankara.   On 3 July 1992 Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation asked the Turkish Constitutional Court to dissolve the HEP on the ground that it had undermined the integrity of the State on account of statements made by its leaders and officers which were contrary to the Constitution and in breach of the legislation on political parties, but also on account of the fact that it had lent its protection and assistance to some of its members who had committed illegal acts.   At the applicants’ request, the chairman of the HEP was allowed to make oral submissions to the Constitutional Court, which decided in a judgment of 14 July 1993 to dissolve the party on the ground that its activities were likely to undermine the territorial integrity of the State and the unity of the nation. The Constitutional Court criticised the HEP in particular for “seeking to divide the Turkish nation in two, with Turks on one side and Kurds on the other, with the aim of setting up separate States” and for “seeking to destroy national and territorial integrity”. As various criminal trials were still pending, the Constitutional Court dismissed Principal State Counsel’s second argument that the HEP tolerated illegal acts by its members.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 September 1993. Having declared the applications admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 1 March 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 11, that no separate issue arose under Articles 9 and 10 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the question whether there had been a violation of Article   14. It further concluded by 22 votes to 4 that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1. The case was brought before the Court on 3 June 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President, Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that the dissolution of the HEP had infringed their right to freedom of association, guaranteed by Article 11. They further complained of violations of Articles 9 and 10, and of Article 14 on account of the political opinions the HEP stood for. Lastly, they alleged the violation of Article 6, as the Constitutional Court had not heard their case at a public hearing.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 In the present case the Court’s task was to assess whether the dissolution of the HEP and the accessory sanctions imposed on the applicants corresponded to a “pressing social need”.   The Court accepted that the principles the HEP stood for, such as the right of self-determination and recognition of language rights, were not, as such, contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy. Similarly, it accepted that if it were considered that merely by advocating those principles a political grouping was supporting acts of terrorism, this would diminish the possibility of dealing with related questions within the framework of democratic debate and allow armed movements to monopolise support for the principles concerned. That in turn would be very much at odds with the spirit of Article 11 and the democratic principles on which it was based.   The Court further considered that even where proposals informed by such principles were likely to clash with the main strands of government policy or the convictions of a majority of the public, the proper functioning of democracy required political groupings to be able to introduce them into public debate in order to help to find solutions to problems of general interest concerning politicians of all persuasions. The Court took the view that it had not been established in the judgment of 14 July 1993 by which the HEP was dissolved that its policies were aimed at undermining the democratic regime in Turkey. Nor had it been argued before the Court that the HEP had any real chance of installing a type of regime which did not meet with the approval of everyone on the political stage.   Moreover, the severe, hostile criticisms made by the HEP’s leaders about certain actions of the armed forces in their anti-terrorist campaign could not in themselves constitute evidence that the HEP was to be equated with the armed groups carrying out acts of violence. The Court reiterated in that connection that the limits of permissible criticism were wider with regard to the Government than in relation to a private citizen. In a democratic system the actions or omissions of the Government had to be subject to the close scrutiny of the legislative and judicial authorities, the press and public opinion. The Court was not persuaded that by criticising the actions of the armed forces the HEP’s MPs and officers were pursuing any other goal than that of discharging their duty to draw attention to their electors’ concerns.   As the HEP had not advocated any policy which could have undermined the democratic regime in Turkey and had not urged or sought to justify recourse to force for political ends, its dissolution could not reasonably be considered to correspond to a “pressing social need”.   Reiterating that the dissolution of a political party is a “drastic” measure, the Court considered that in a democratic society such interference with the applicants’ freedom of association was not necessary in the instant case. Consequently the dissolution of the HEP had breached Article 11.   Articles 9, 10 and 14 Since the complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 14 concerned the same facts as those examined from the standpoint of Article 11, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine them separately.   Article 6 The Court observed that it had already held that similar complaints were incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 6. It could see no reason to depart from that finding in the present case. Consequently, Article 6 was not applicable in the case.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.