Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas
2017 m. lapkričio 21 d.
Facts
In 2017 a binding constitutional referendum was held in Turkey. The applicant was a political party based in Ankara with an interest regarding the outcome of the referendum.
Complaint
The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No 1 that the Government had failed, inter alia, to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. The applicant party argued that the referendum should be considered to fall within the scope of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 as a result of the far-reaching nature of the changes it introduced into the Turkish parliamentary system.
Court’s ruling
Article 3 of Protocol No 1 enshrined a characteristic principle of an effective democracy and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system. Democracy constituted a fundamental element of the “European public order”, and the rights guaranteed are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law.
However, the text of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 clearly suggested that its ambit was limited to elections − held at reasonable intervals − determining the choice of the legislature, and its wording was a strong indication of the limits of an expansive, purposive interpretation of its applicability. The object and purpose of the provision had to be ascertained by reference to the wording used in the provision.
The purpose of the Constitutional Referendum in Turkey had been to decide whether the President of Turkey should be accorded extensive powers within a new constitutional system of government. Accordingly, the Referendum did not amount to an “election” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No 1. The Court declared the application inadmissible.