CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 novembre 2003

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAF1EE20D { width:14.08pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     562   12.11.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber Judgment in the case: Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and Others v. Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following judgment, which is not yet final [1] :     Violation of Article 11 Socialist Party of Turkey ( STP ) and Others v. Turkey (application no. 26482/95)     The applicants are the Socialist Party of Turkey ( Sosyalist Türkïye Partisi – STP ) and the 13   Turkish nationals who founded the party, İlhami Alkan, Süleyman Zeyyat Baba, Murat Beşer, Sedat Cengiz, Nihat Çağlı, Mehmet Ali Doğan, Aydemir Güler, Kemal İbrahim Okuyan, Uğur Pişmanlık, Ahmet Hamdi Samancılar, Hüseyin Yıldız, Neşenur Domaniç and Selma   Kuzulugil.   The STP was formed on 6 November 1992. On an application by Principal State Counsel, the Constitutional Court made an order on 30 November 1993 for the party’s dissolution on the grounds that its programme was liable to undermine the territorial integrity of the State and the unity of the nation. It found that the STP had called for a right of self-determination for the Kurds and supported the right to “wage a war of independence”. It likened its views to those of terrorist groups and said that those views in themselves constituted unlawful incitement to violence.   The applicants alleged that the party’s dissolution had infringed their rights guaranteed by Articles 11 (freedom of association), 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also alleged a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), in that they had been discriminated against as a result of the political opinions associated with their party.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the STP ’s dissolution amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association. That interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of national security.   The STP had been dissolved solely on the basis of its programme, even before it had been able to commence its activities. The Court had examined that programme and found nothing in it that could be considered a call for the use of violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. There could be no justification for hindering a political group merely because it sought to debate in public the situation of part of the State’s population and to take part in the nation’s political life in order to find, by democratic means, solutions capable of satisfying everyone concerned. Judging from its programme, that had been the STP ’s aim on that issue.   There was always a possibility that a party’s real aims might not be the same as those it stated in public, and that was something that could be verified by looking at its actions and the positions it defended. However, no such verification was possible in the STP ’s case, as it was dissolved shortly after being formed and was not even given the time to commence any activity. It had been penalised for conduct that came within the sphere of freedom of expression.   The Court was prepared to take into account the background to the cases that came before it, and in particular the difficulties inherent in the fight against terrorism. However, since the STP had no activity, it found that there was no evidence before it to support the allegation that it had any responsibility for the problems posed by terrorism in Turkey.   Consequently, a measure as radical as the order finally dissolving the STP with immediate effect, which was made even before the STP had commenced its activities, appeared disproportionate to the aim pursued and, as a result, unnecessary in a democratic society. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. It ruled that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention separately, as they related to the same matters.   The Court dismissed the STP ’s application for just satisfaction and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the other applicants. It awarded the applicants 10,000 euros jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in French only).       ***   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 Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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. [Note1]   Press release for individual judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: case name [+   date] + language (e.g. Sliven 31012003E or C.T. v. Finland 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4)   Subject: JCH or JGC . When you have completed your document, run the “CleanUpMyDocumentToBePublished” macro to remove all comments or remove them manually.