Considering the case brought by Ecevit Piroglu and Mihriban Karakaya, representatives from the Izmir branch of the Human Rights Association (IHD), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has decreed that Turkey did not respect the right to defense, attempted to close the IHD branch without any justification, and violated the right to the freedom of expression.
The ECHR announced its decision on Tuesday, 18 March. The court decreed unanimously that Articles 6/1, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.
The applicants were both members of the executive board of the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Association at the relevant time.
Governor demanded membership annulment
The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about their conviction for having failed to comply with a request by the Governor of Izmir to annul memberships of their Association.
On 10 July 2001 the Governor of Izmir sent a letter to the Association requesting that 13 members, including Mihriban Karakaya, have their membership annulled on account of their alleged involvement in illegal activities.
That letter also mentioned that Ms Karakaya had been taken into police custody in April 1999, but had subsequently been released as it had not been established that she had any connection with the illegal TKP/ML-TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist–Turkish Workers' and Peasants' Liberation Army).
The Association replied that they would not comply with the request, alleging that none of the 13 people had prior convictions which would ban them from founding or becoming a member of an association in accordance with Turkish law. Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against the applicants.
No opportunity for defense
In December 2001, Izmir Magistrates’ Court convicted the applicants without holding a hearing. The applicants lodged an objection against their conviction, which was dismissed by Izmir Criminal Court. During those proceedings, none of the defendants were given the opportunity to make submissions to the court.
Karakaya sentenced for press statement
Mihriban Karakaya further complained about a second criminal conviction for having been involved in a press declaration to protest against the deployment of American troops in Afghanistan.
In October 2001 the Association and several local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) took part in a movement called the “Platform of Conscientious Objectors to War” and made a collective press declaration to protest against the deployment of American troops in Afghanistan.
A second set of criminal proceedings were brought against Ms Karakaya under Section 34 of the Associations Act for her involvement with that movement as the prosecutor considered that it was an organisation without any lawful status in Turkey.
Ms Karakaya was ultimately found guilty in December 2001. She lodged an objection against her conviction, arguing in particular that “a collective press declaration” could not be classified as contributing to the establishment of an unlawful organisation. In February 2002 the criminal court dismissed her objection.
ECHR decided: Three articles violated
The ECHR concluded that the criminal proceedings had been unfair, in violation of Article 6/1. It also considered that the Turkish Government had not demonstrated why the public authorities could have legitimately required the annulment of the applicant’s membership.
The court further concluded that Ms Karakaya had been deprived of proper legal protection against arbitrary interference with her right to freedom of association, in violation of Article 11.
The ECHR observed that Ms Karakaya had been convicted under Section 34 of the Associations Act, and argued that the local courts had extended the scope of Section 34 beyond what could have been reasonably foreseen.The Court thus concluded that the interference with the Ms Karakaya's freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law, in violation of Article 10. (EÖ/GG/AG)
