Previous 15 / 43 Next

YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 13 e. Electoral districts (their number, the size and form, the magnitude) may be designed with the purpose to enhance the minorities’ participation in the decisionmaking processes.” 3. Documents specifically relating to elections in Turkey (a) Report of the ad hoc Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 57. The Government referred to the report of the ad hoc Committee for the Observation of Parliamentary Elections in Turkey (3 November 2002), produced on 20 December 2002. The relevant parts of the report read as follows: “As widely reported by the media, two parties only out of eighteen found their way into the new TBMM [the Grand National Assembly of Turkey]: the AKP (Justice and Development [Party]) and CHP (Republican People’s Party), leaving out all other parties, which had been represented so far in the Parliament because they could not meet the 10% threshold. The party in government until the elections received only 1% of the votes. Economic and corruption problems were determining in the elections. A clear and absolute majority has emerged with 362 seats for the AKP, 179 seats for the opposition and 9 seats for independent members. (These independent members are elected in small towns where they have a good reputation.) It should be recalled that AKP had 59 seats in the previous Parliament, and the CHP 3 (1999 elections). This situation might create probably greater stability in the country by avoiding complicated and unstable coalitions. On Monday 4 November 2002 the Turkish Stock Exchange went up by 6.1%. However, it also means that approximately 44% of the voters have no representation in the Parliament. The results must thus be considered as a clear protest vote against the Establishment as a whole, since none of the three parties in the old governing coalition got enough votes for a single seat!” (b) The Parliamentary Assembly’s Resolution 1380 (2004) 58. Paragraphs 6 and 23 of Resolution 1380 (2004) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 22 June 2004, are worded as follows: “6. With regard to pluralist democracy, the Assembly recognises that Turkey is a functioning democracy with a multiparty system, free elections and separation of powers. The frequency with which political parties are dissolved is nevertheless a real source of concern and the Assembly hopes that in future the constitutional changes of October 2001 and those introduced by the March 2002 legislation on political parties will limit the use of such an extreme measure as dissolution. The Assembly also considers that requiring parties to win at least 10% of the votes cast nationally before

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Yumak & Sadak v. Turkey

Resources

Preview

Legal Issue and/or Topic

Legal Frameworks
Regional Jurisprudence

Description: The applicants in this case allege that the ten percent threshold for entering Parliament directly interferes with the freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 3 of Protocol 1. Both applicants sought election as members of the People’s Democratic Party during the 2002 parliamentary elections. Neither applicants was successfully elected. The People’s Democratic Party was a newly formed political block in September of 2002. All other political blocks existed since before 1991. In Sirnak, the People’s Democratic Party received 45.95% percent of the vote, but failed to meet the national ten percent requirement. The Sirnak seats then went to a member of the Justice and Development Party that polled 14.05% and an independent who polled 9.69%. The imposition of the ten percent threshold disqualified all but two political parties from gaining seats in the legislature. A similar fact pattern occurred during the 2007 elections. The first hearing on the merits of the case was held on September 5, 2006 and found no violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1. On April 21, 2007 the applicants asked the Grand Chamber to hear the case. The court determined that the domestic legislative framework sought to set forth a scheme of obtaining office through elections. That scheme, however, must be arbitrary and serves the proportionality goal it seeks to accomplish. First, the court stated that the law was not arbitrary because all political parties that fail to meet the ten percent threshold are prohibited from obtaining political office and many political parties were prohibited from doing so since its enactment. Second, although thresholds are common across Europe, Turkey remains among the three highest. The court ultimately stated that the ten percent threshold should be lowered because it is a high level but the court was not persuaded that in this political context the threshold resulted in freedom of expression or impaired rights of candidates and political parties. The court founds no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

Language

English
French

Geolocation

Latitude: 39.889866476023506

Longitude: 32.77150759681381

: Geolocation

Author(s): European Court of Human Rights

Date: Jul 8, 2018

Primary Documents

CASE OF YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY.pdf
English
Download View
AFFAIRE YUMAK ET SADAK c. TURQUIE.pdf
French
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Yumak & Sadak v. Turkey

Primary Documents

Notifications