Exclusion of a political party from state funding. Non-violation of non-discrimination
JUDGMENT
Demokrat Parti v. Turkey 30.09.2021 (app. no. 8372/10)
SUMMARY
The case concerns the refusal by the Ministry of Finance to pay the applicant – a political party –
public funding for the year 2006, following the repeal in May 2005 of section 16 of the Political
Parties Act (Law no. 2820). The applicant party relied on Articles 11 (freedom of association) and 14
(prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court reiterated that a difference in treatment could raise an issue from the point of view of the
prohibition of discrimination as provided for in Article 14 of the Convention only if the persons
subjected to different treatment were in a relevantly similar situation, taking into account the
elements that characterised their circumstances in the particular context.
In the present case, it noted that the applicant party (Demokrat Parti) had not been treated
differently – in relation to another political party in a comparable situation – in the exercise of its
rights or its political activities, for the purposes of Article 14 taken together with Article 11 of the
Convention, on account of the refusal to pay the contested public funding for 2006.
The complaint was thus manifestly ill-founded.
PROVISIONS
Article 11
Article 14
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Demokrat Parti (“Democrat Party”), is a political party which has its headquarters in
Ankara. At its annual conference in 2009 the political party Anavatan Partisi (“ANAP”, the
Motherland Party) decided to merge with the applicant party, under the latter’s name, that is,
Demokrat Parti.
In March 2006 the ANAP applied to the Ministry of Finance for public funding for the year 2006. The
following day the Ministry of Finance refused this request, arguing that section 16 of the Political
Parties Act (Law no. 2820) – on the basis of which the applicant party had previously been eligible for
public funding – had been repealed on 7 May 2005 by section 1 of Law no. 5341.
The applicant lodged an appeal before the Ankara Administrative Court, which set aside the Minister
of Finance’s decision in July 2006. However, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the latter
ruling in October 2008, holding that the applicant was not entitled to public funding for 2006.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 January 2010.
Relying on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination),
the applicant party argued that there had been a breach of its right to freedom of association and
that it had been discriminated against, in that the funding in question had been granted to other
political parties. It also submitted that this discrimination had given rise to inequality between the
various political parties taking part in the electoral campaign.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court noted that there were two systems of public funding for political parties in the relevant
domestic law.
The first system concerned political parties which had taken part in the most recent parliamentary
elections and had obtained at least 7% of the votes cast. In the present case, although the applicant
party had taken part in the legislative elections on 3 November 2002, it had obtained 5.18% of the
votes cast, and had thus failed to reach the national threshold required for representation in the
National Assembly. Thus, the applicant party did not fulfil the necessary conditions in order to be
granted the public funding provided for under this first system.
The second system of public funding provided that such funding was granted to political parties
which had obtained less than 7% of the votes cast and were represented in the National Assembly
by at least three members following the transfer of elected members to the lists of other political
parties. Having fulfilled these criteria, the applicant company had thus received public funding until
2005, when section 16 of Law no. 2820, which provided for this line of funding, was repealed. It was
for this reason that the Minister of Finance had refused in 2006 to grant the public funding
previously paid to the applicant party.
The Court reiterated that a difference in treatment could raise an issue from the point of view of the
prohibition of discrimination as provided for in Article 14 of the Convention only if the persons
subjected to different treatment were in a relevantly similar situation, taking into account the
elements that characterised their circumstances in the particular context.
In the present case, the applicant party had not received funding from the respondent State for
2006. It alleged that the Genç Parti (the Youth Party) had obtained public funding on account of
having obtained 7% of the votes cast in the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002, even
though that party did not have any representatives in the National Assembly. In contrast, the
applicant party had not obtained public funding although it had had more than three representatives
sitting in the National Assembly.
Having examined all the arguments put forward by the parties and the conditions required in order
to be granted public funding, the Court noted that the Genç Party had received public funding for
having obtained 7% of the votes cast in the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002. The
threshold of 7% of votes cast had been sufficient to be granted public funding but insufficient to win
seats in the National Assembly, in that it was lower than the minimum level of electoral support
required. It had therefore been eligible to receive public funding, in accordance with the applicable
law, which had still been in force, not for having been unable to elect representatives to the National
Assembly, as the applicant party alleged.
In contrast, the applicant party had obtained 5.18% of the votes cast in the parliamentary elections
of 3 November 2002. The threshold of 5.18% of the votes expressed had been insufficient to obtain
public funding and had also been insufficient to win representatives in the National Assembly, in that
it was lower than the minimum level of electoral support required. It followed that as the amount of
votes obtained by the applicant had been lower than the 7% threshold required, it could not be
granted the public funding granted to the Genç Parti, which had obtained 7% of the votes cast. In
consequence, the applicant party had not been placed in an analogous or relevantly similar position
to the Genç Parti.
In addition, a careful examination of the documents in the case file did not allow the Court to find
that another political party in an analogous or relevantly similar situation to that of the applicant
party had received the public financial aid which had been refused to it in 2006. Furthermore, the
applicant party did not submit any factual or legal argument capable of supporting such an
allegation.
In consequence, the Court concluded that the applicant party had not been treated differently in the
exercise of its political rights or activities, within the meaning of Article 14 taken together with
Article 11 of the Convention, in relation to the non-payment of the contested public funding for
2006. This complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and had to be rejected pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
