Previous 1 / 43 Next

CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY (Application no. 10226/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 July 2008

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