CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 16 janvier 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s769CFE63 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:360pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .s10A1E69F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s6CFF9571 { width:25.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   21                       16.01.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF REFAH PARTISI, ERBAKAN, KAZAN and TEKDAL v. TURKEY   Tuesday 16 January 2001 at 9.00 a.m.   The applicants   The first applicant, Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party, hereinafter “Refah”), was formerly a political party, founded on 19 July 1983. It is represented by Necmettin Erbakan, the second applicant, who, at the material time, was a member of parliament and president of Refah. He is a politician and engineer. The third applicant, Sevket Kazan, is a politician and lawyer. At the material time he was a member of parliament and vice-president of Refah. The fourth applicant, Ahmet Tekdal, is likewise a politician and lawyer. At the material time he was a member of parliament and vice-president of Refah.   Summary of the facts   On 21 May 1997 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation made an application to the Turkish Constitutional Court seeking the dissolution of Refah, which he accused of transforming itself into a “centre of activities inimical to the principle of secularism”. In support of his application he cited a number of acts and statements by Refah’s leaders and members, alleging that these showed that the party’s aims were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society, as they included the introduction of Islamic law (sharia) and a theocratic regime.   Before the Constitutional Court the applicants’ representatives submitted that the Principal Public Prosecutor had cited only extracts from the speeches in issue, distorting their meaning and failing to take the full context into account. They argued that Refah, which had shared power for a year up to that point as part of the government coalition, had demonstrated its compliance with the principle of secularism and its respect for all faiths and was not similar in any way to those political parties whose aim was to bring in a totalitarian regime. They further submitted that the first time Refah’s leaders had learnt of the existence of some of the remarks cited by the prosecution had been when they read the Principal Public Prosecutor’s submissions, and said that they had excluded those who had made them from the party so that it would not constitute a “centre” for unlawful activities within the meaning of the law on political parties.   On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court dissolved Refah on the ground that it had become a “centre of activities inimical to the principle of secularism”. It also ordered Refah’s assets to be transferred to the Treasury. It further held that the public statements of Refah’s leaders, and particularly of Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, made Refah directly responsible for the unconstitutionality of its activities and decided, as an accessory penalty, to strip them of their office as members of parliament and debar them from holding certain other kinds of political office for five years. Complaints   The applicants complain of violations of Articles 9 (freedom of thought), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 1 (protection of property) and 3 (right to free elections) of Protocol No. 1.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 22 May 1998 and declared partly admissible by the Court’s Third Section on 3 October 2000.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President, Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albania), juges , Pranas Kūris , (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian) substitute judges,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar.   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Ergun Özbudun, Co-Agent , Yunus Belet, Münci Özmen , Deniz Akçay , Ergin Ergül , Alev Günyaktı , İlkem Altıntaş , Counsel ;   Applicants:   Laurent Hincker , Counsel , Mustafa Kamalak , Marie Lemaitre , Advisers.   Mr Kazan and Mr Tekdal 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.   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.