Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks v. Romania (application no. 16632/09) (AİHS md. 14 & Birinci Protokol md. 3)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne göre, “seçim kanunundaki geç değişiklik, Türk azınlığı temsil eden bir derneğin seçimler için adaylığını koyma hakkını ihlal etmiştir.” 

Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks v. Romania kararı uyarınca, ulusal makamlar, 2008 parlamento seçimlerinden yedi ay önce seçim kanununu değiştirerek, başvurucuların yeni kanun ile getirilen seçilebilirlik kriterlerini karşılayabilmesini sağlayacak biçimde etkinliklerini organize etme imkânını vermemiştir. Sonuç olarak, AİHS md. 14, Birinci Protokol md. 3 ile birlikte ele alınınca, ihlal edilmiştir.

Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks v. Romania kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks v. Romania kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5067297-6235749” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:

Late change in electoral law infringed right to stand for election of an association representing the Turkish minority

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks v. Romania (application no. 16632/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention.

The case concerned the applicant association’s inability to meet the requirements for standing in the 2008 parliamentary elections following the entry into force of a new electoral law only seven months before the elections. The new law required national minority organisations not represented in Parliament to have been granted charitable status in order to be able to stand for election.

The Court observed that in the 2004 parliamentary elections the association had polled only slightly fewer votes than another association representing the Turkish minority, which had won a seat in Parliament as a result; it thus concluded that at that time the applicant association had satisfied all the requirements for standing for election and that it not had been able to organise its subsequent activities except in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the relevant time.

The Court found in particular that by amending electoral legislation seven months before the 2008 parliamentary elections, the authorities had not given the applicants the opportunity to organise their activities in such a way as to be able to satisfy the eligibility criteria introduced as a result of the new legislation.