  []

YAZAR, KARATAS, AKSOY and THE PEOPLE’S LABOUR PARTY (HEP) v. TURKEY

Freedom of assembly – violation Article 11

Even where proposals informed by democratic 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 dissolution of a political party is a “drastic” measure which should correspond to a “pressing social need”.

In a judgment delivered on  April  in the case of Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and the People’s Labour Party (HEP) v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights unani- mously held that: – there had been a violation of Article  of the European Convention on Hu- man Rights (freedom of assembly and association); – that there was no need to determine whether there had been violations of Articles  (freedom of thought),  (freedom of expression) and  (prohibi- tion of discrimination) of the Convention; and – that Article  (right to a fair hearing) was not applicable in the case. Under Article  (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the applicants , euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR , jointly for legal costs and expenses. This judgment is not final. Pursuant to Article , Section  of the Convention, within three months from the date of the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

. Principal facts The HEP (Halkin Emegi Partisi – the People’s Labour Party) was founded in . At the material time, Feridun Yazar was its chairman, Ahmet Karatas its vice-chair- man and Ibrahim Aksoy its secretary general. All three are Turkish nationals who live in Ankara.

   []

On  July  Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation asked the Tu rkish Constitutional Court to dissolve the HEP on the ground that it had un- dermined 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 legisla- tion on political parties, but also on account of the fact that it had lent its protec- tion 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  July  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 Prin- cipal State Counsel’s second argument that the HEP tolerated illegal acts by its members.

. Procedure of the Court The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on  September . On  April  the Commission declared the application ad- missible. On  March  the Commission unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article , that no separate issue arose under Articles  and  and that it was not necessary to examine separately the question whether there had been a violation of Article . It further concluded by  votes to  that there had been no violation of Article , Section . The case was referred to the Court by the Commission on  June . On  November  it was re-assigned to the Fourth Section.

. Summary of the judgment

Complaints The applicants alleged that the dissolution of the HEP had infringed their right to freedom of association, guaranteed by Article  of the European Convention on Human Right. They further complained of violations of Articles  and , and of Article  on account of the political opinions the HEP stood for. Lastly, they alleged the violation of Article , as the Constitutional Court had not heard their case at a public hearing.

