Kaya and Diri v Turkey (decision), 11 December 2007 [ECtHR]

Cases nos 60813/00 and 61317/00

The Court considers it unnecessary to determine whether the applicants could claim to be victims or whether they have exhausted domestic remedies, within the meaning of Articles 34 and 35 § 1 of the Convention, since their complaints under Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

The present case concerns the dissolution of the Tunceli Culture and Solidarity Association and of the incidental effects thereof. In this connection, the Court observes that the applicants’ general complaints regarding the dissolution of the Association and the lack of an effective domestic remedy are substantially the same as those already examined by the Court in the case of Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği v. Turkey (no. 61353/00, judgment of 10 October 2006). The Court finds that the applicants have not submitted any “relevant new information” in relation to the above complaints. Consequently, the Court considers that this part of the application is inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention as being substantially the same as a matter that has previously been examined by the Court (see, for example, Alabay and Güzel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41334/98, 31 January 2006).

While the applicants have also referred to their own position as members of the board of the association, the Court notes that there is nothing in the case file to demonstrate with certainty that the applicants had this status at the relevant time, the last pertinent document being dated 28 January 2000, which was some weeks prior to the decision of the Court of Cassation. Nor have they demonstrated, or even asserted, that following the dissolution of the Association they had attempted, but were prevented, from becoming members or directors of another association, or that they had suffered personal apprehension and distress due to the imposition of any ban on them until the amendment of these provisions on 30 July 2003 (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 40). Since the applicants’ complaints centred essentially on the dissolution of the association, which measure has already been found to be an unjustified interference with Article 11 of the Convention in the aforementioned Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği case, the Court is not persuaded in the circumstances that the applicants have shown themselves to have been subjected to any separate or further interference with their rights. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Submit Information



Enter Keyword

Select one or several topic(s)



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