## Facts

- In 1991, the United Communist Party of Turkey (TBKP) was formed as a political party.
- Within days, the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation sought the party’s dissolution in the Turkish Constitutional Court, asserting that the party’s name (“communist”) and aims threatened national security and the State’s unity and territorial integrity.
- The Turkish Constitutional Court dissolved the TBKP about ten days after its formation, before it engaged in meaningful political activity or participated in elections.
- The court also imposed political bans on the party’s leaders, restricting their ability to hold leadership roles in future political parties.
- The TBKP and two leaders complained to the Convention institutions that the dissolution and bans violated, principally, their freedom of association under Article 11.

## Issues

1. Whether dissolving the TBKP and imposing political bans on its leaders interfered with Article 11, and if so whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether, after resolving the Article 11 claim, it was necessary to examine the remaining complaints under Articles 9, 10, 14, 18, and Protocol No. 1.

## Decision

- The court unanimously found an interference with the applicants’ Article 11 rights.
- The interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims related to national security and protection of the State’s territorial integrity.
- The dissolution and leadership bans were not necessary in a democratic society and violated Article 11.
- Given the Article 11 violation, the court declined separate examination of the complaints under Articles 9, 10, 14, 18, and Protocol No. 1.
- For remedies, the finding of a violation was deemed sufficient for non-pecuniary harm; pecuniary claims were rejected; costs and expenses were awarded in part.

## Legal Principles

- Political parties fall within Article 11 and are essential to democratic functioning; Convention protection extends throughout an association’s life.
- Dissolving a political party and restricting its leaders constitutes a serious interference with freedom of association.
- Article 11 analysis for political parties is informed by Article 10 because party activity is a collective form of political expression.
- Immediate and permanent dissolution is an exceptional sanction requiring relevant and sufficient reasons and a pressing social need.
- A party name, standing alone, cannot ordinarily justify dissolution absent concrete circumstances showing a real threat.
- Peaceful advocacy of political solutions, including discussion of minority issues and constitutional arrangements, is protected; restrictions require proof of a genuine threat to democratic order and proportionality to the legitimate aim.

## Conclusion

The court held that Turkey’s rapid dissolution of the TBKP and the associated leadership bans lacked a demonstrated pressing social need and were disproportionate, resulting in a violation of Article 11’s protection of political association and pluralist democratic debate.


United Communist Party of Turk. v. Turk., 26 Eur. H.R. Rep. 121 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1998)