print

Membership

Kizilöz v Turkey (decision), 11 January 2000 [ECtHR]

Case no 32962/96

2. The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that he was convicted on account of his political opinions.

In this connection, the Court points out that in order to determine whether the applicant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were breached it must first be ascertained whether the conviction in question amounted to an interference with the exercise of those rights by the applicant (see the Kosiek v. Germany judgment of 28 August 1986, Series A no. 105, p. 20, § 36).

The Court notes that the Turkish courts convicted the applicant on account of his membership of an illegal organisation and his involvement in a number of illegal activities. It appears therefore that the applicant was not convicted on account of his political opinions. Nor was he prohibited from receiving and imparting such opinions. The Court therefore considers that there has been no interference with the applicant’s rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and accordingly no question arises as to the possible justification for such interference under paragraph 2 of those provisions.

It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

back
Submit Information

 

Search

Enter Keyword



Select one or several topic(s)

 

Jurisprudence

Compulsion to join Business associations Economic objectives Hunting associations Pension funds Restrictions Criminal convictions Non-nationals Public officials Disclosure of member's name Deportation Discriminatory treatment Failure to promote Transfer