## Facts

- Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) was founded in 1983 and grew into a major parliamentary party in Turkey during the late 1980s and 1990s.
- Turkey’s Constitutional Court dissolved Refah in 1998, finding it had become a “centre” of activities contrary to the constitutional principle of secularism.
- The dissolution order imposed time-limited political bans on several party leaders, including Necmettin Erbakan, Şevket Kazan, and Ahmet Tekdal.
- The domestic court relied principally on statements and conduct attributed to Refah’s leaders, including:
  - Advocacy of a state order grounded in sharia as a political program.
  - Support for a “plurality of legal systems,” under which different religious communities would be governed by different legal rules.
  - Statements interpreted as tolerating or contemplating the use of force (including references to “jihad” and possible bloodshed) to gain or retain power.
- Refah and its leaders contended that the cited statements were taken out of context and that the party pursued its goals through democratic means.
- The applicants filed applications alleging violations of multiple Convention provisions; a Chamber found no violation of Article 11, and the case was referred to the Grand Chamber.

## Issues

1. Whether dissolving a political party and banning its leaders from political activity interfered with freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether the interference was justified under Article 11(2) as prescribed by law, pursuing legitimate aims (including public order, national security, and protection of others’ rights), and necessary in a democratic society.
3. Whether a state may act preventively against a party with a realistic prospect of gaining power when its program is deemed incompatible with democratic principles, including secularism and equality before the law.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held unanimously that there was no violation of Article 11.
- The Court treated dissolution as a severe interference but found it justified as necessary in a democratic society to protect public order, national security, and the rights and freedoms of others.
- The Court accepted secularism as a fundamental constitutional principle in Turkey and as compatible with democratic aims, including freedom of conscience and legal equality.
- The Court concluded that Refah’s identified aims—religiously segmented legal orders, introduction of sharia-based norms, and acceptance of force as a political method—were incompatible with democratic values and human rights.
- The Court gave weight to Refah’s political strength and realistic prospects of governing, holding that authorities need not wait until anti-democratic objectives are implemented.
- Having found no violation of Article 11, the Court found it unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 and Protocol No. 1.

## Legal Principles

- Political parties are central to democratic life and receive strong protection under Article 11; dissolution requires convincing and compelling reasons.
- Convention protections do not extend to political projects that aim to undermine or destroy democracy, including by abolishing rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.
- In assessing whether a party poses a threat, relevant considerations include the party’s program, leaders’ statements and conduct, and the party’s realistic capacity to implement its aims through electoral success.
- A state may take preventive measures when there is a pressing social need to protect democratic order, particularly where the party’s objectives are deemed incompatible with pluralism, equality, and human rights.
- Proportionality requires weighing the gravity of dissolution against the nature and immediacy of the threat; time-limited political bans may support a finding of proportionality within the overall measure.
- States retain a margin of appreciation in responding to threats to democratic governance, subject to European supervision under the necessity and proportionality standards.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Turkey’s dissolution of Refah and related political bans, ruling that preventive action against a party with a credible prospect of power can be compatible with Article 11 when the party’s objectives are found to conflict with democratic principles, including secularism, equality before the law, and the rejection of political violence.


Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) & Others v. Turkey, App. Nos. 41340/98 et al. (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003)