Dissolution of HADEP was not justified
Dissolution of HADEP was not justified
European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey's decision to dissolve pro-Kurdish People Democracy Party (HADEP) is unjust and ordered Ankara to pay compensation to party officials.
The court unanimously decided that there had been a a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights in decision of Turkish Constitutional Court verdict about HADEP.
ECHR statement said the parties agreed that HADEP dissolution amounted to an interference with its right to freedom of association. The Court had hesitations as to whether the interference could be said to have pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder, protecting the rights of others and protecting territorial integrity and thus preserving national security, as argued by the Turkish Government. It decided to examine this question together with the closely related question whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of Article 11.
It observed that the party had been dissolved on the basis of activities and statements of some of its members which, according to the Turkish Constitutional Court, made it a centre of illegal activities. As regards the question whether the conclusion that HADEP was guilty of aiding and abetting the PKK had been based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, the Court noted that the Turkish court's decision had referred to statements made by party members, in which the actions of the Turkish security forces in south-east Turkey in their fight against terrorism were referred to as a dirty war In previous judgments, the Court had already had occasion to examine articles and speeches featuring the phrase dirty war. It had held that while being a sharp criticism of the Government policy, they did not incite to hatred, revenge, recrimination or armed resistance. The same was true of the statements made by HADEP members, which did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and could thus not in themselves constitute sufficient evidence to equate the party with armed groups carrying out acts of violence.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Turkey was to pay Mr Demir 24,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be held by him for members and leaders of HADEP, and EUR 2,200 to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.
The court unanimously decided that there had been a a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights in decision of Turkish Constitutional Court verdict about HADEP.
ECHR statement said the parties agreed that HADEP dissolution amounted to an interference with its right to freedom of association. The Court had hesitations as to whether the interference could be said to have pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder, protecting the rights of others and protecting territorial integrity and thus preserving national security, as argued by the Turkish Government. It decided to examine this question together with the closely related question whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of Article 11.
It observed that the party had been dissolved on the basis of activities and statements of some of its members which, according to the Turkish Constitutional Court, made it a centre of illegal activities. As regards the question whether the conclusion that HADEP was guilty of aiding and abetting the PKK had been based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, the Court noted that the Turkish court's decision had referred to statements made by party members, in which the actions of the Turkish security forces in south-east Turkey in their fight against terrorism were referred to as a dirty war In previous judgments, the Court had already had occasion to examine articles and speeches featuring the phrase dirty war. It had held that while being a sharp criticism of the Government policy, they did not incite to hatred, revenge, recrimination or armed resistance. The same was true of the statements made by HADEP members, which did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and could thus not in themselves constitute sufficient evidence to equate the party with armed groups carrying out acts of violence.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Turkey was to pay Mr Demir 24,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be held by him for members and leaders of HADEP, and EUR 2,200 to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.
