ECHR Dismisses Complaint on Right to Stand for Election

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a verdict in the case of Baskın Oran, a professor of political science who ran in Turkey’s parliamentary elections in 2007.  

On the other hand, the court found that Oran’s claims of “violence of right to stand for election”, “prohibition of discrimination” and “right to an effective remedy” were inaccurate.

Oran complained to Strasbourg about Turkish citizens who had lived abroad for more than six months being able to vote only for the lists presented by the political parties, and not for independent candidates like him, in the polling stations set up at customs posts. He also complained that unlike the political parties, he had been unable to campaign on radio and television.

Decision of the court 

Oran applied to the National Electoral Commission on July 3rd, 2007 seeking to have the decree of May 27th 2007 annulled. On July 4th, 2007 the Electoral Commission refused his request. Oran applied to ECHR relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) taken in conjunction with Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.

ECHR has a chamber of seven judges including Işıl Karakaş from Turkey. The chamber refused Oran’s “prohibition of discrimination” request with a majority of vote and his “right to an effective remedy” request with consensus. 

The court noted that political parties have the capacity to campaign in order to present their vision of how they would run the country if elected and that’s why their campaigning extended over the entire country. An independent candidate running without a party doesn’t have the capacity to exercise the same influence as a political party. 

The court was not convinced and stated that sides of the issue don’t have a comparable situation for purposes of Article 14.

In addition, ECHR decided that there had been no violation of Article 13 and the situation did not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention. (EÖ/HK/ENÖ/BM)

* Click here to read the article in Turkish.