Election Judgments - IFES

Second, although thresholds are common across Europe, Turkey remains among the three highest.

Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, ECHR 2012 Sobacı v. Turkey, no. 26733/02, 29 November 2007 Söyler v. Turkey, no. 29411/07, 17 September 2013 Staatkundig Gereformeerde

Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. 77 Austria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine. 78 For

14 ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-IV, and Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III).

“Republic of Turkey Constitutional Referendum, 16 April 2017: Limited Referendum Observation Mission Final Report,” June 22, 2017, https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/324806. 59 Office

“Republic of Turkey Constitutional Referendum, 16 April 2017: Limited Referendum Observation Mission Final Report,” June 22, 2017, https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/324806. 59 Office

(see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 45, Reports 1998-I, and Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 108,

of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports 1998-I, pp. 20 et seq., §§ 42 et seq.; Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey,

conclusions identified by the Court in United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey (30 January 1998, §§ 45-46, Reports 1998-I). The applicant contested

Case of Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1547 ff.; Eur. Court HR, Case of Çiraklar v. Turkey, judgment of 28

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. 34. The above-mentioned countries provide either

applications stemming from the same issue in Turkey had been pending before the Court, and ruled that Turkey was required to put in place, within a

effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others

opinions and information (see, for example, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions

(Austria, Georgia, Germany, Lithuania, Moldova, North Macedonia, San Marino, Serbia and Turkey) bans photography, cameras and mobile telephones within polling stations. In Austria

May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions

§ 161; the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86; and the Yaşa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998,

effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others

effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others

state of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 39, 29 June 2012). This time-limit also affords the

Tribunal (The Philippines) Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (Kenya) Supreme Board of Elections (Turkey) State Election Commission (Macedonia) Senate Electoral Tribunal (The Philippines) Mexican Case

§ 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109 (iii), 8 July 2008). 38. The Court notes

TUNISIA: POUR LA TUNISIE: 3» PORTÛNEZ: MAHMOUD MESTIRI Le 30 avril 1968 FOR TURKEY: POUR LA TURQUIE: 3» POR TURQUÎA: Vol. 999, 1-14668 1976 1976 United

for more than half of the polling stations for which it was requested Turkey 2007 Constitutional Court Annulment of the presidential election results Colombia

similar vein, the European Court of Human Rights in Akdivar and Others v Turkey Application no. 21893/93 Judgment of 16 September 1996 Reports of Judgments and

Federal Constitutional Court by a two-thirds majority vote), the multiconstituency model (e.g. Turkey, where after constitutional amendments in 2010, the legislature appoints three constitutional

Comment No. 87 Bati and Others v. Turkey, App. No. 33097/96, Eur. Ct. H.R. 136 (2004); see also Aksoy v. Turkey, App. No. 21987/93 Eur. Ct. H.R.