003-68448-68916

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    699  8.12.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 8 December 1999 in the case of Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (application no. 23885/94), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of association). Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant party 30,000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage and 40,000 for legal costs and expenses.   1. Principal facts   The applicant, the Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) was founded on 19 October 1992. On 29 January 1993, Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation applied to the Constitutional Court for an order dissolving ÖZDEP on the grounds that its programme sought to undermine the territorial integrity and secular nature of the State and the unity of the nation. While the Constitutional Court proceedings were still pending, the founding members of the party resolved to dissolve it in order to protect themselves and the party leaders from the consequences of a dissolution order – namely a ban on their carrying on similar activities in other political parties. On 14 July 1993 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving ÖZDEP.   2. Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 March 1993. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 12 March 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, that no separate issue arose under Articles 9 and 10 and that it was unnecessary to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Article 14 (twenty-nine votes to one). It referred the case to the Court on 24 September 1998.   Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998, the date on which the Protocol entered into force. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President, Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Lucius Caflisch[1] (Swiss), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), András Baka (Hungarian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Judges, Feyaz Gölcüklü, ad hoc Judge,   and also Paul Mahoney and Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Registrars.   3. Summary of the judgment[2]   Complaints   The applicant party complained that its dissolution by the Constitutional Court had infringed the right of its members to freedom of association, secured by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objection   The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection in which they had pleaded that ÖZDEP could not claim to be the victim of its dissolution because it had dissolved itself voluntarily before its dissolution was ordered by the Constitutional Court. The Court ruled that since in Turkish law a voluntarily dissolved political party remained in existence for the purposes of dissolution by the Constitutional Court, the Government could not contend before the Court that ÖZDEP was no longer in existence when the dissolution order was made.   Article 11 of the Convention   The Court could find nothing in ÖZDEP’s programme that could be considered a call for the use of violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. That was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. On the contrary, the need to abide by democratic rules when implementing the proposed political project was stressed in the programme. The court noted in addition that, taken together, the passages in issue in ÖZDEP’s programme presented a political project whose aim was in essence the establishment – in accordance with democratic rules – of “a social order encompassing the Turkish and Kurdish peoples”. It was true that in its programme ÖZDEP also referred to the right to self-determination of the “national or religious minorities”; however, taken in context, those words did not encourage separation from Turkey but were intended instead to emphasise that the proposed political project must be underpinned by the freely given, democratically expressed, consent of the Kurds.   In the Court’s view, the fact that such a political project was considered incompatible with the current principles and structures of the Turkish State did not mean that it infringed democratic rules. It was of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political projects to be proposed and debated, even those that called into question the way a State was currently organised, provided that they did not seek to harm democracy itself.   The Court noted the radical nature of the interference in issue: ÖZDEP had been definitively dissolved with immediate effect, its assets had been liquidated and transferred ipso iure to the Treasury and its leaders had been banned from carrying on certain similar political activities.   Moreover, the Government had failed to explain how, as they asserted, ÖZDEP could bear any part of the responsibility for the problems caused by terrorism in Turkey since it had scarcely had time to take any significant action.   In conclusion, ÖZDEP’s dissolution had been disproportionate to the aim pursued and consequently unnecessary in a democratic society. It followed that it had breached Article 11 of the Convention.   Article 41 of the Convention   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded 30,000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage and 40,000 francs for legal costs and expenses.   * * *   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.dhcour.coe.fr).   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [2] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.