bey/hanim'i gonulden kutlarim.
Dilek
--- In Daughters_of_Ataturk@yahoogroups.com, Gözde Dedeoğlu
<gozdededeoglu@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
1.04.2008,
>
Ä°zmir,
> Turkey.
>
>
> Mr.Jose Manuel Barroso, President of EU Commission
>
> Mr. Ollie Rehn, EU Commissioner ( olli.rehn@... )
>
> Mr. Joost Lagendijk, ( xp-euro@... )
>
> Member of the European Parliament, Chair of the Joint Parliamantery
> Committee with Turkey
>
> Ms.Ria Oomen- Ruijten ( ria.oomen-ruijten@... )
> 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@... )
>
>
> Dear Lady and Sirs,
>
>
> I am a lawyer living in Ä°zmir 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 ''ErdoÄŸan'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 ErdoÄŸan 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 Atatürk is proud to promote Turkish Heritage across the globe. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 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