İzmir,
Turkey.
Mr.Jose Manuel Barroso, President of EU Commission
Mr. Ollie Rehn, EU Commissioner ( olli.rehn@ec.europa.eu )
Mr. Joost Lagendijk, ( xp-euro@europarl.europa.eu )
Member of the European Parliament, Chair of the Joint Parliamantery
Committee with Turkey
Ms.Ria Oomen- Ruijten ( ria.oomen-ruijten@europarl.europa.eu )
The EU Parliament's rapporteur for Turkey.
Mr.Ambassador Marc Pierini ( fax; 0312 4481465 )
Head of Delegation of the European Commission in Turkey. (
delegation-turkey@ec.europa.eu )
Dear Lady and Sirs,
I am a lawyer living in İzmir who seeks to uphold human rights and
fundamental freedoms recognized by national and international law and
at all times act freely and diligently in accordance with the law and
recognized standards of the legal profession. enshrined in Basic
Principles on the Role of Lawyers Adopted by the Eighth Crime
Congress, Havana, 27 August-7 September 1990
I am really dissapointed and concerned about the recent declarations
of EU's top level authorities regarding to the closure case of AKP. As
it is known, Chief Prosecutor of Supreme Court of Appeals, Mr
Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya filed his indictment before the
Constitutional Court on March 14, demanding that ''Erdoğan's AK P be
disbanded on grounds that it has become a focal point of "anti-secular
activities." He cited the government's efforts to lift a ban on the
wearing of headscarves at universities despite the judgements of
Consitutional Court and ECtHR., (See..Leyla Sahin v.Turkey) , attempts
to roll back restrictions on religious education and allegedly
anti-secular comments by party officials. The indictment is based on
the judgements of Constitutional Court and ECtHR related to the
closure of Refah Partisi and Fazilet Partisi. (See…Refah Partisi
v.Turkey)
Following the said indictment the prime minister R.Tayyip Erdoğan and
the top level members of AKP has opened an anti-propaganda war against
the Chief Prosecutor Mr.Yalçınkaya and the judiciary. Nowadays
Mr.Ollie Rehn, Mr.Joost Lagendijk and Ms.Ria Oomen-Ruijten commenced
to support the said anti-propaganda war against the independent judiciary
and THE RULE OF LAW.
According to UN Havana Principles on the Role of Prosecutors; ''
States shall ensure that prosecutors can perform Professional
functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper
interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other
liability.''
Ms. Oomen-Ruijten, stated in her report that Turkey lacks a
completely independent judicial system in which democratically elected
officials can have faith and confidence. Oomen-Ruijten supports a
possible constitutional change to counter closures of political
parties in Turkey and said, "a fast reform of the judiciary can help
to overcome the situation for AKP and the Democratic Society Party
(DTP), both of which are treated in the same way by the prosecutor."
(Turkish Daily News, 29.03.2008)
The co-president of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee,
Mr.Joost Lagendijk, described the court cases against the AKP and DTP
as "a legal coup in the political process." "The judiciary wants to
teach a lesson to the people of Turkey, saying they have chosen wrong
in the elections. This is unacceptable," he said. However, Lagendijk
also criticized the government for failing to deliver on promises for
a civil constitution in an overall package, rather limiting the
proposal to the headscarf issue (Turkish Daily News..29.03.2008 )
Mr. Rehn said he would report to the European Commission on the case
on Wednesday, saying it showed a "systemic error" in Turkey's
constitutional framework. "The prohibition or dissolution of
political parties is a far-reaching measure which should be used with
the utmost restraint," Rehn said in a statement, adding: "I do not see
any such justification for this case." On Saturday, Rehn made similar
remarks, saying attempts to close the AK Party could jeopardize
Ankara's EU entry talks. (
Today's Zaman , 1.04.2008)
According to Article 138 of Turkish Constitution; '' According to
Article 138 of Turkish Constitiution; '' Judges shall be independent
in the discharge of their duties; they shall give judgement in
accordance with the Constitution, law, and their personal conviction
conforming with the law. No organ, authority, office or individual may
give order or instructions to courts or judges relating to the
exercise of judicial power, send them circulars, or make
recommendations or suggestions. ''
Let me please remind you the EU Annual Report on Human Rights-2007 ;
'' Th e EU and the Council of Europe (CoE) share the same values and
pursue common goals with regard to the protection and the promotion of
democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the
rule of law. The EU's aim remains to enhance cooperation in these
priority areas, as was again underlined at the Council of Europe
Summit in Warsaw on 17 May 2005.
To that end, a Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and the CoE
was agreed and signed in May 2007. The CoE and the EU share deep and
increasing concern for the future of the European Court of Human
Rights. The rapidly increasing backlog of cases of the
Court can only be addressed by the ratifi cation of Protocol 14 to the
European
Convention of Human Rights, which provides for the necessary streamlining
and
simplifi cation of procedures. All CoE Member States have ratified the
Protocol, apart from Russia, where in December 2006 the Duma failed to
vote in favour. ''
I would kindly advise you to read ECtHR's judgements of Leyla Sahin
v.Turkey and Refah Party v.Turkey and pay respect to Turkish and
international laws for the protection of the independence of judiciary
and the RULE OF LAW.
Awaiting for your reply, sincerely yours.
Noyan Özkan
FOOTNOTES
Some paragraphs taken from ECrtHR Grand Chamber Judgement..Leyla Sahin
v.Turkey ( 44774/98……10.11.2008 )
In addition, like the Constitutional Court, the Court considered that,
when examining the question of the Islamic headscarf in the Turkish
context, there had to be borne in mind the impact which wearing such a
symbol, which was presented or perceived as a compulsory religious
duty, may have on those who chose not to wear it. As had already been
noted, the issues at stake included the protection of the "rights and
freedoms of others" and the "maintenance of public order" in a country
in which the majority of the population, while professing a strong
attachment to the rights of women and a secular way of life, adhered
to the Islamic faith. Imposing limitations on the freedom to wear the
headscarf could, therefore, be regarded as meeting a pressing social
need by seeking to achieve those two legitimate aims, especially since
that religious symbol had taken on political significance in Turkey in
recent years.
The Court did not lose sight of the fact that there were extremist
political movements in Turkey which sought to impose on society as a
whole their religious symbols and conception of a society founded on
religious precepts.
Against that background, it was the principle of secularism which was
the paramount consideration underlying the ban on the wearing of
religious symbols in universities. In such a context, where the values
of pluralism, respect for the rights of others and, in particular,
equality before the law of men and women were being taught and applied
in practice, it was understandable that the relevant authorities
should consider it contrary to such values to allow religious attire,
including, as in the case before the Court, the Islamic headscarf, to
be worn on university premises.
In those circumstances, and having regard to the Contracting States'
margin of appreciation, the Court found that the interference in issue
was justified in principle and proportionate to the aims pursued, and
could therefore be considered to have been "necessary in a democratic
society". It therefore found no violation of Article 9.
The Court held:
by sixteen votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 9
(freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European
Convention on Human Rights;
by sixteen votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 (right to education);
unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to
respect for private and family life);
unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom
of expression);
unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination).
*************************************************************************************************
Refah Partisi v.Turkey…Grand Chamber Judgement (41340/98, 41342/98,
41343/98, and 41344/98).13.02.2003)
The Court further considered that the constitution and programme of a
political party could not be taken into account as the sole criterion
for determining its objectives and intentions. The political
experience of the Contracting States had shown that in the past
political parties with aims contrary to the fundamental principles of
democracy had not revealed such aims in their official publications
until after taking power. That was why the Court had always pointed
out that a party's political programme might conceal objectives and
intentions different from the ones it proclaims. To verify that it did
not, the content of the programme had to be compared with the actions
of the party's leaders and the positions they defended.
In making an overall assessment of the necessity of the interference
and in particular whether it corresponded to a pressing social need,
the Court found that the acts and speeches of Refah's members and
leaders cited by the Constitutional Court were imputable to the whole
of the party, that those acts and speeches revealed Refah's long-term
policy of setting up a regime based on sharia within the framework of
a plurality of legal systems and that Refah did not exclude recourse
to force in order to implement its policy and keep the system it
envisaged in place. Considering that these plans were incompatible
with the concept of a "democratic society" and that the real
opportunities Refah had to put them into practice made the danger to
democracy more tangible and more immediate, the penalty imposed on the
applicants by the Constitutional Court, even in the context of the
restricted margin of appreciation left to it, might reasonably be
considered to have met a "pressing social need".
The Court further concluded that the interference could not be
regarded as disproportionate in relation to the aims pursued.
There were thus convincing and compelling reasons justifying Refah's
dissolution and the temporary forfeiture of certain political rights
imposed on the other applicants. It followed that Refah's dissolution
might be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the
meaning of Article 11 § 2 and there had accordingly been no violation
of Article 11.
***********************************************************************************************
------------------------------------
Sema Karaoglu, Founder Meltem Birkegren, Director
www.DofA.org
www.wearetheturks.org
Daughters of Atat�rk is proud to promote Turkish Heritage across the globe. Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk shaped the legacy we proudly inherited.
His integrity and dynamism and vision constantly inspires us. We are thankful to him for walking the untrodden path, achieving the unimaginable dream, living the eternal vision. We are the Turks, we are the future of Turkey.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Daughters_of_Ataturk/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Daughters_of_Ataturk/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Daughters_of_Ataturk-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Daughters_of_Ataturk-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Daughters_of_Ataturk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder