The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) has published a legal review focusing on the banning of opposition parties, examining nine cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights. These cases assessed whether the dissolution of political parties complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The organization notes that political parties play a vital role in ensuring democratic pluralism. Consequently, under the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, their dissolution is regarded as an exceptional measure of last resort that can be justified only by compelling and weighty reasons.
In seven of the cases reviewed, the Court found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, ruling that the dissolution of the parties failed to meet the requirements of proportionality and necessity in a democratic society. In two cases, the Court found no violation, concluding that, given the specific circumstances, dissolving the parties was a necessary and justified measure in a democratic society.
In Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey (2003), the Grand Chamber held that the dissolution of the political party did not violate Article 11 of the Convention.
“The Court reiterated that exceptions to the rule of freedom of association are to be construed strictly and only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on that freedom. The dissolution of a political party is a drastic measure that can be justified only in the most serious cases.”
In its assessment, the Court paid particular attention to three circumstances:
- whether there was convincing evidence that the threat to democracy was real and imminent;
- whether the statements and actions of the party’s leaders and members could be imputed to the party as a whole, and whether, taken together, they reflected a model of society incompatible with the concept of a democratic society;
- the historical context and the importance of safeguarding the principle of secularism in Turkey.
The Court found that statements by the party’s leaders regarding the introduction of a legal system based on Sharia and the potential use of force to achieve that end—alongside other factors—were attributable to the party. Moreover, the party stood a real chance of assuming power, which, according to the Court, made the threat posed by its proposed political platform sufficiently tangible. Based on an overall assessment of these circumstances, the Court concluded that dissolving the party met a “pressing social need” and constituted a proportionate measure to achieve a legitimate aim.
The case of Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain (2009) – no violation of Article 11 of the Convention was found.
The Supreme Court of Spain dissolved both parties after determining that their activities served the implementation of ETA’s terrorist strategy and that demonstrable operational links existed between the parties and the organization. The European Court reiterated that the dissolution of a political party is an extreme measure justified only in cases of exceptional gravity.
When evaluating the necessity of the interference, the Court focused on two primary criteria: whether there was reliable evidence that the threat to democracy was sufficiently and reasonably imminent, and whether the statements and actions attributable to the party collectively formed a social model incompatible with the concept of a democratic society.
Applying these criteria, the Court did not limit its review to the parties’ mere failure to condemn ETA attacks. It also took into account other actions that domestic courts had linked to inciting social confrontation and providing indirect support for ETA’s terrorist activity. Following a comprehensive review of the evidence, the European Court deemed the domestic courts’ conclusions regarding the parties’ ties to ETA to be well-founded. Within the context of terrorist attacks that had plagued Spain—particularly the Basque Country—for decades, this link was assessed as an objective threat to democracy.
https://sovanews.tv/2026/10/23/zapret-oppoziczii-v-gruzii-pochemu-sravneniya-s-drugimi-stranami-ne-rabotayut/
At the same time, the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association cites examples where the Court ruled that party bans were unjustified.
In United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey (1998), the ECtHR found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
The Constitutional Court of Turkey had dissolved the United Communist Party of Turkey (TBKP), on the one hand, due to the inclusion of the word “communist” in its name and, on the other, because its charter and program referred to Kurds and Turks as distinct nations—which was deemed separatist and a threat to the state’s territorial integrity.
The European Court clarified that the choice of a political party’s name, absent other relevant and sufficient grounds, cannot justify a measure as severe as dissolution. The Court underscored that there was no concrete evidence to suggest that by using the word “communist,” the party advocated a political course posing a real threat to Turkish society or the state.
Regarding the Kurdish question, the Court observed that referring to the Kurds as a “people” and a “nation” in the party program did not equate to demanding special rights or advocating separation from the rest of Turkey. Rather, the program called for a peaceful, democratic, and equitable resolution of the Kurdish issue, as well as the equal coexistence of the Kurdish and Turkish peoples within the borders of the Republic of Turkey. The Court emphasized that one of the defining features of democracy is the ability to resolve national issues through dialogue rather than violence. Consequently, restricting the activities of a political group could not be justified merely because it publicly debated the status of a segment of the country’s population and sought solutions through democratic channels.
The Court applied a similar principle in Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey (1998), where a party was banned based on statements made by its former chairman. Those statements concerned the self-determination of the Kurdish people and the establishment of a federal system in Turkey, which the Turkish Constitutional Court considered a threat to the state’s territorial integrity and national unity.
The European Court established that the statements did not contain calls to violence, incitement to insurrection, or a rejection of democratic principles. On the contrary, the party chairman had emphasized the necessity of carrying out political reforms democratically—through elections and referendums. The Court explained that a political program’s divergence with the established structures of a state does not, in itself, render it incompatible with democratic principles. An integral feature of democracy is the opportunity to propose and debate diverse political programs, including those advocating changes to the constitutional order, provided they do not undermine democracy itself. The Court also noted that dissolving the party, confiscating its assets, and banning its leadership from engaging in political activities constituted exceptionally harsh measures that could only be justified in cases of exceptional gravity.
In Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (1999), the Grand Chamber likewise found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The party had been dissolved over its platform, which addressed the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue and the right to self-determination. The Court noted that the platform contained no incitement to violence, insurrection, or rejection of democratic norms. It stressed that proposing and debating varied political platforms, including reforms to the constitutional framework of the state, is an indispensable element of democracy, provided these initiatives do not cause harm to democracy itself.
In Yazar and Others v. Turkey (2002), the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 11. The Turkish Constitutional Court had dissolved the People’s Labour Party (HEP) on the grounds of statements and actions by its leaders and representatives that domestic courts found to threaten the state’s territorial integrity and national unity. In its assessment, the Court also took into account statements by party officials concerning the activities of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The European Court clarified that advocating self-determination and the recognition of linguistic rights does not, of itself, contradict fundamental democratic principles. Equating the defense of these ideas with support for terrorism would narrow the scope of democratic debate and effectively allow armed groups to monopolize these issues.
The Court adopted a similar approach in HADEP and Demir v. Turkey (2010), where the party’s dissolution was deemed a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court of Turkey had dissolved the party after concluding that it had become a center of illegal activity and provided aid to the PKK. The European Court observed that HADEP’s program explicitly condemned violence and proposed political solutions consistent with the rule of law, democratic principles, and respect for human rights. Furthermore, the Court viewed the party’s characterization of government security operations as a “dirty war” as severe political criticism that did not encourage violence or armed resistance and could not, in and of itself, substantiate a formal operational link between the party and armed groups. The Court concluded that the evidence presented did not prove HADEP supported the PKK’s terrorist activities, and the party’s dissolution therefore did not answer a “pressing social need.”
In Republican Party of Russia v. Russia (2011), the European Court found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. Russian authorities dissolved the party—established in 1990—in 2007 because it failed to meet domestic statutory thresholds requiring a minimum membership size and regional representation. The legislation required the party to have no fewer than 50,000 members and at least 45 regional branches with more than 500 members each. The Court noted that nothing in the party’s charter or program pointed to an undemocratic nature, and over its 17 years of existence, it had never been accused of resorting to violence or attempting to subvert the democratic order. The sole basis for its dissolution was non-compliance with statutory membership numbers and regional branch quotas.
The Court also highlighted the sharp escalation in minimum membership requirements and the frequent amendments to the legislation, which, combined with routine state audits, imposed a disproportionate burden on political parties. Regarding regional representation, the Court noted that the party functioned as a nationwide political force, did not espouse separatist views, and its charter explicitly endorsed national unity and the peaceful coexistence of a multi-ethnic population. Under these circumstances, the Court could not discern how dissolving the party served the legitimate aims invoked by the state. Accordingly, it concluded that the dissolution was disproportionate, constituting a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
In Party for a Democratic Society (DTP) and Others v. Turkey (2016), the European Court found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The Court noted that the party’s program condemned violence and advanced political solutions compatible with the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. It further clarified that recognizing Kurdish identity and supporting a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish question do not inherently run counter to core democratic values. Equating the promotion of these ideas with support for terrorism would restrict public debate and surrender these issues entirely to armed groups. As for statements made by the party’s co-chairs, the Court held that they did not incite violence, armed resistance, or insurrection.
The Court acknowledged that sanctioning the party for failing to explicitly distance itself from the remarks and conduct of certain members and local leaders could have addressed a “pressing social need.” However, given the relatively limited impact of that failure on public order and the rights and freedoms of others, the Court ruled that it could not alone justify dissolving the entire political party. Consequently, the dissolution was found disproportionate, resulting in a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
https://sovanews.tv/2026/10/14/zapret-oppoziczii-v-gruzii-chto-stoit-za-iskom-gruzinskoj-mechty-i-chem-eto-grozit-strane/