Documentation Centre Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM)
Achter Sint Pieter 200, 3512 HT Utrecht, The Netherlands, telephone: +31 30 2537038, email: email@example.com
We regret to inform you that the Documentation Centre of SIM, including its databases will be closed in the near future. Due to changing circumstances, such as the increasing amount of information available elsewhere and the investments that would be required to maintain substantive added value, this decision has been taken.
This means that SIM's databases will be no longer be updated and that they will go offline on 1 January 2015 or earlier if circumstances so require.
Thank you for using our databases.
|Publication:||[not yet received]|
|Title:||Fazilet Partisi and Kutan v. Turkey|
|Date of reference by Commission:|
|Date of reference by State:|
|Date of Judgment:||27-04-2006|
|Conclusion:||Struck out of the list|
The applicants are a political party, Fazilet Partisi (Virtue Party), and its former chairman, Mehmet Recai Kutan, a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Ankara. On 22 June 2001 the Constitutional Court dissolved Fazilet on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities contrary to the principle of secularism". At the time it had 111 members of parliament.
The applicants submitted that Fazilet's dissolution breached Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and that they had been victims of a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). They also alleged a violation of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and submitted that the Constitutional Court had exceeded its powers for the purposes of Articles 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions of rights).
In a letter of 2 December 2005 Mr Kutan informed the Court that the applicants intended to withdraw their application. In the circumstances, the Court considered that there was no justification for continuing to examine the case. Furthermore, and in view particularly of the attitude of the applicants as expressed in the letter in question, it found that there was no particular reason to consider that respect for human rights required it to continue its examination of the application. The Court therefore decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list. (The judgment is available only in French.)
|Last Modified: 13-01-2014 16:18:19 (Documentation SIM)