Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) v Turkey
The dissolution of a political party which advocated the introduction of sharia law and a plurality of legal systems did not breach article 11, because its aims were incompatible with democracy.
Facts
Refah Partisi, a Turkish political party, became the largest party in the Turkish parliament and led a coalition government. The Turkish Constitutional Court dissolved the party, on the ground that it had become a centre of activities against the principle of secularism, because its leaders had advocated the introduction of a plurality of legal systems based on religion and of sharia law, and had made statements suggesting that they might use force to achieve their aims.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held unanimously that there had been no violation of article 11. The court said that a political party may promote a change in the law or the constitutional structure of the state, provided that the means used are lawful and democratic, and that the change proposed is itself compatible with fundamental democratic principles. A plurality of legal systems based on religion, and the introduction of sharia law, would be incompatible with the Convention, and the party's leaders had not excluded the use of force. The dissolution corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
