Case N° TK/56 - FEHMI ISIKLAR - TURKEY

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 158th session
(Istanbul, 20 April 1996)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Referring to the outline of the case, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/158/13(a)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 157th session (October 1995), on the case of Mr. Fehmi Isiklar, a former member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA),

Recalling that Mr. Isiklar was the President of the People's Labour Party (HEP) when elected in October 1991 on an SHP ticket (Social-Democratic Party), the HEP having been barred from the elections; recalling that he resigned from the HEP and joined the SHP; that he was subsequently elected Vice-President of the Turkish Grand National Assembly,

Recalling that he was no longer a member of the HEP when the action for dissolution of that party was brought before the Constitutional Court on 3 July 1992,

Recalling that Mr. Isiklar was deprived of his parliamentary mandate following the decision of the Constitutional Court on 14 July 1993 to close down the HEP, and that the decision was reportedly prompted by a statement by Mr. Isiklar when still President of the HEP that: "The HEP wants a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question within the boundaries of Turkey. The HEP struggles for wilful coexistence of the people in Turkey. The HEP is against separatism",

Recalling that Article 84, paragraph 3, of the Constitution established that: "The membership of a deputy whose acts and statements are cited in a judgment of the Constitutional Court as having caused the dissolution of a political party and that of other deputies who belonged to the party on the date when the action for dissolution was brought, shall end on the date when the Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey is notified of the dissolution order",

Recalling that the Constitutional Court was under no legal obligation to hear Mr. Isiklar and that it indeed decided not to hear him,

Considering that, on 23 July 1995, the TGNA adopted an amendment to that article whereby the TGNA membership of all deputies belonging to a political party dissolved by the Constitutional Court would not be annulled automatically and that only the membership of those deputies who by their activities had caused the dissolution of their political party would be annulled; considering also that an amendment to Article 149 provides that in cases regarding the permanent dissolution of a political party, the Constitutional Court, after listening to the Attorney General of the High Court of Appeal, shall hear the leader of the party whose dissolution is demanded, or any proxy appointed by that leader,

Recalling that, in the view of the former President of the Turkish National Group, the HEP could not have been dissolved under the new provisions since only individual MPs can now be held responsible for their statements and not the party; that, however, at the request of former MPs concerned by the amendment, the Constitutional Court had decided that it could not be applied retroactively,

Recalling therefore that Mr. Isiklar was unable to regain his seat in the TGNA,

Considering that Mr. Isiklar did not stand for election in December 1995,

Considering that no allegations have been made regarding threats to his personal security,

1. Deplores the fact that Mr. Isiklar was deprived of his mandate under former Article 84, paragraph 3, for having, when President of the HEP, made a statement cited in the judgment of the Constitutional Court as grounds for dissolving the HEP;

2. Deeply regrets that the Constitutional Court at the time was under no legal obligation to hear Mr. Isiklar and indeed decided not to hear him;

3. Stresses that anybody accused must have the right to be heard and that circumventing this rule by shifting the accusation from the individual to his or her party amounts to a violation of Mr. Isiklar's right to be heard;

4. Deeply deplores, in any event, the fact that Mr. Isiklar's declaration, as brought to its attention, justified the dissolution of a political party and caused the loss of his parliamentary mandate, and considers that, in making the statement in question, Mr. Isiklar merely exercised his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Turkey is a party;

5. Notes with satisfaction the amendments adopted to the Turkish Constitution regarding the dissolution of political parties, whereby the Constitutional Court would have to hear Mr. Isiklar were the case of the dissolution of HEP now before it;

6. Notes that Mr. Isiklar did not stand for re-election in December 1995;

7. Also notes that no allegations have been made of threats to his personal security or of any harassment;

8. Decides to close the file.