Following the Taksim Square May Day Ban issued by Istanbul Governor, Ankara Bar Association Lawyer Sedat Vural applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Advocate Vural told bianet that the aforementioned ban violated the European Declaration of Human Rights articles on organization and public gatherings as well as freedom of expression.
On April 24, Vural applied to Turkey’s Constitutional Court, saying that the ban violated regulations related to freedom of expression, right to gatherings and demonstrations.
His application was rejected the next day, saying that he “didn’t exhausted all internal means” prior to applying to the Constitutional Court.
“The court felt the tension in Turkey”
“The Constitutional Court rejected my application, saying that I have not applied to all internal jurisdiction. I have submitted my application on April 24 and I was rejected on April 25. They rejected me on the foundation day of the Constitutional Court.
“Unfortunately, the court also felt the dove tension [reffering to Hrant Dink’s expression] in our country and they made a decision accordingly.”
“ECHR’s verdict is the evidence that internal means exhausted”
“[The court] ignored the internal means on the Twitter verdict for instance. The court made it possible to lift the ban before it produced irreplacable consequences.
“Regarding the Taksim ban, they said the internal means were not exhausted. However, there is already an ECHR verdict on the Taksim demonstration ban on November 27, 2012. So ECHR already ruled a verdict after the internal means were exhaused.
“Therefore, it is not possible to search for internal means one more time. This is also the reason why I requested an expedited review of my application.” (EKN/BM)
* Click here to read the article in Turkish.
.jpg)
