Socialist Party of Turkey, Plenary Court Soering
M.Levinet indicates that Shariah is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. His religious principles have a stable and invariable. But this is contrary to pluralism defended by the Convention. In effect, the Court defends a reading of principles constantly changing. In addition, statements containing explicit references to the Shari'a are contrary to democracy. Echoing the § 72 of the previous case from 2001, judges recall that "it is difficult both to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights and to support a regime based on Sharia."
Moreover, this text is, on the other hand, contrary to the rules of criminal law and procedure, particularly with regard to respect for physical integrity (Article 3 ECHR). Upon the decision of the Plenary Court Soering against United Kingdom of 7 July 1989 (§ 88), it is recalled that this right is "one of the fundamental values of democratic societies making up the Council of Europe." In addition, Tyer off against UK 25 April 1978 on blows to a person and Jabari off against Turkey of 11 July 2000 on stoning, or the D et al Adde off against Turkey 22 June 2006 on the lash, to mention only these examples reaffirm the rejection by the Court of inhuman treatment. These same inhuman treatment are authorized by the Shariah.
[...] It is part of the European public order. It is best to ensure he continues, "the religious supremacy of politics" from the moment the "religious" and a "political" tool becomes Trojan horse threatening the values principles common of the "House of Europe" and the European vision. " The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe enshrines secularism as a European value. The principle of secularism in Turkey is a founding principle of the state. Thus, 104 specifies that "an attitude fails to respect that principle will not necessarily be accepted as part of freedom to manifest religion and would not benefit from the protection of Article 9 of the ECHR." Continuing the control in concreto, judges rely on the principle of equality and pluralism of convictions to control the formal elements such as the statutes and the official program to capture the real intensions of the party. [...]
[...] Accordingly, each State Party "may legitimately prevent the rules of private faith-based law affecting public order and values democracy" such as introducing the gender discrimination 128) are applied to its territory. The latter may take a position based on its historical experience against "political movements based on religious fundamentalism" 124). Yet such is the case of the species. The state has the duty to protect the guaranteed rights, it may impose on political parties' duty to respect and safeguard the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention "and" the obligation not to put forward a political program in contradiction with the fundamental principles of democracy 103). [...]
[...] Socialist Party of Turkey Therefore, the analysis of review by the Strasbourg judges appears essential. The Strasbourg judges decide that the system "eliminates the role of the State as guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and as an "impartial organizer" of the exercise of religious beliefs "in a democratic society". This system adversely affects the enjoyment of public freedoms, given that non-discrimination is the very foundation of a democratic society. Indeed, discrimination is an essential aspect of the political project. [...]
[...] Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and others against Turkey of 12 November 2003: freedom of association, national security (Article necessary in a democratic society (Article 11). Infringement of Article 11 and no need to examine Article and 14. Refah Partisi and Others against Turkey the Grand Chamber of 13 February 2003: freedom of association, secularism, Islam, limitations necessary in a democratic society, no violation of Article 11, not necessary to examine Article and 18. Islamische Religionsgemeinschaft e. V against Germany on 5 December 2002: freedom of religion, religious profit organization, the Islamic faith, trusteeship. [...]
[...] The judges shall inspect the conditions of good faith and actions "carefully and reasonably." The United Communist Party against Turkey on 31 January 1998 is an illustration. In addition, the proportionality is controlled. A member of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to join the army, is convicted. Later, he meets with a refusal when he was recruited as an accountant. Faced with this dispute, the Strasbourg judges decide in this case, that rejection is disproportionate because the measure has no objective and reasonable justification. [...]
using our reader.