Violation Of The Right To Organise Meetings And Demonstrations Due To Prevention Of Demonstration March
Events
A group of approximately 250 people, including the applicant, gathered at the marketplace opposite the Ankara Intercity Terminal (AŞTİ) and wanted to march to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (ÇSGB) building, approximately one kilometre away, where collective bargaining negotiations were to be held, together with the Confederation delegation to attend the negotiations and to make a press statement in front of the building. Law enforcement officers warned the group to disperse because the route of the meeting and march was not within the areas permitted by the Governorate and the group blocked the entire road to vehicle traffic, and set up a barricade to prevent the march. As the group did not disperse despite the warnings, the police forces intervened in the group and the applicant was detained.
The applicant applied to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office) requesting an investigation against the law enforcement officers who intervened, the supervisors in charge, the Ankara Provincial Police Chief, the Governor of Ankara and the Minister of Interior for intentional injury and abuse of office. Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision of separation as the investigation against the Minister and the Governor was subject to different procedures, and issued a decision of non-prosecution against the law enforcement officers and their superiors. The applicant’s objection to the aforementioned decision was definitively rejected by the criminal judgeship of peace.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to organise meetings and demonstrations was violated due to the refusal of permission to hold a demonstration march in line with the decision taken by the trade union.
The Court’s Assessment
Right to organise meetings and demonstrations is one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society and aims to protect the ability of individuals to come together to defend their common ideas and to make them known to others. This right, which is exercised collectively and enables those who wish to express their opinions to do so through methods that exclude violence, guarantees the emergence, protection and dissemination of different opinions, which are essential for the development of pluralist democracies. Accordingly, if an interference with the right to organise meetings and demonstrations does not meet a compelling social need, or if it meets a compelling social need but is not proportionate, it cannot be considered an interference in accordance with the requirements of the democratic social order.
The fact that the organs exercising public power interpret the laws strictly – to the extent that it makes the exercise of the right to assembly significantly difficult – and claim that the procedures stipulated in the legislation are not fully complied with does not, by itself, eliminate the peaceful character of the assembly or demonstration march. The existence of this situation cannot justify the violation of the right to assembly. It is a requirement of a pluralist democracy that the state shows patience and tolerance to the non-violent behaviour of people who have come together for peaceful purposes and do not pose a danger to public order while exercising their right to assembly.
In the concrete case, the group, including the applicant, wanted to march approximately one kilometre to the place where the collective labour agreement negotiations were to take place. The participants organised the said march with the aim of collectively expressing their opinions in order to improve their economic and social situation and working conditions, and to make their voices heard by the Government officials who were at that time at the ÇSGB building to hold collective labour negotiations. In that case, it must be accepted that the organisation of the march subject to the application, especially on the date of the negotiations, has a special importance for the participants. The planned assembly and demonstration march for the aforementioned purpose must be respected in a democratic society.
However, it has been determined that the route of the march was not on one of the busy streets of Ankara, but on the contrary, one of the many very narrow alleyways leading to the ÇSGB building was chosen. The minutes of the video recording analysis do not contain any explanation other than the fact that the road was completely closed to traffic. Therefore, no assessment was made as to the extent to which the demonstrators disrupted traffic during the meeting, whether there were no alternative routes for vehicles to proceed, whether there was an intolerable or impossible harm or threat of harm during the disruption of traffic within the framework of the protection of public order and the rights and freedoms of others, and whether the nature of the march exceeded the acceptable limit requiring tolerance.
Considering that the route planned for the march was approximately one kilometre long and there were many side streets in the same area, it was not taken into consideration that if the march was not prevented, traffic would be disrupted only for a short time.
In the concrete case, the participants were allowed to make a press statement at the relevant place, provided that they did not march en masse, did not carry banners and pennants and left the meeting area individually. The right to organise meetings and demonstrations is a right exercised collectively by individuals to defend their common ideas together and to make them known to others. In the case subject to the application, the importance of the collective exercise of the right in question – in terms of economic and social rights – was not taken into consideration.
On the other hand, it has been assessed that there is no reasonable reason for the administration not to show more tolerance for the participants to exercise their rights in the demonstration march, which is not considered to have ceased to be completely peaceful and no act of violence was detected.
Considering the facts reflected in the application, it was assessed that the intervention in the form of preventing a demonstration march, which was accepted to be peaceful and held in a public area, dispersing and detaining the participants, and depriving the applicant of the right to organise a demonstration march en masse and thus expressing his ideas did not meet a compelling social need, and therefore the intervention was not in accordance with the requirements of the democratic social order.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to organise meetings and demonstrations was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.