Dissolution of Turkish Political Party Held to Violate the European Convention on Human Rights

Case Note on Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (European Court of Human Rights December 8, 1999).

 

 

By Karla W. Simon

 

In a recent Grand Chamber decision the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) held that the dissolution of a registered political party, the Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP), violated Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) See Freedom and Democracy Party v. Turkey.  In so doing it relied heavily on the earlier decision in United Communist Party v. Turkey (Reports 1998-I, p.1), discussed in European Court of Human Rights Holds Right to Form Associations is Fundamental Human Right, in IJNL vol.1, iss. 1. Specifically the Court held that the deregistration in question violated Article 11 because the measure, clearly an interference under that Article, was disproportionate under the circumstances.[1]

 

The ÖZDEP case is significant because it reaffirms the principles stated by the ECHR in the United Communist Party case.  ÖZDEP involved a similar attempt by Turkey to eliminate access to legitimate political activities by persons favoring a more open public policy vis à vis the Kurdish minority in Turkey.  Thus the Court once again discussed the importance of political parties in a democracy – “It is of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political projects to be proposed and debated, even those that call into question the way a State is currently organised, provided that they do not harm democracy itself.”  The Court also stressed, as it did in the United Communist Party case, the fact that ÖZDEP was deregistered even before it could carry out any activities for which it might indeed be legitimate to deregister a party (such as actually conducting activities that would tend toward the undermining of the state).

 

In drawing attention to this aspect of the case, the Court noted that ÖZDEP was “penalised solely for exercising its freedom of expression.” The case thus highlights the connection between Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association and assembly) of the Convention.   This is relevant not only for political parties specifically, but also for other nongovernmental, not-for-profit organizations (NGOs) that express opinions differing from those in the mainstream.  The Court says, for example, that “there can be no democracy without pluralism.  It is for this reason that freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 is applicable … not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.”   The case of course deals specifically with the collective exercise of the freedom of expression by people coming together in political parties.   It is clear, however, that the collective exercise of this freedom is just as important for nonpolitical NGOs as it is for political parties.

 

Taking this latest decision together with the earlier decisions in United Communist Party, Socialist Party v. Turkey (Judgment of May 25, 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1233), and Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, one can see a development in the thinking of the European Court of Human Rights that points toward greater attention to the protection of the freedoms of expression and association in registered entities. The Court has been saying fairly consistently that the expression of highly unpopular ideas, without more, is in no way cause for a group of citizens to be denied access to the protections of legal personality.  The ÖZDEP case is an important reiteration of that principle.