Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) v. Turkey

Refah Partisi (Refah) (plaintiff) was the political party in Turkey (defendant) with the largest number of seats in Parliament. In 1997 an opinion poll projected that in the next general election, Refah might garner 67 percent of the vote. However, a few months later, the Turkish Constitutional Court dissolved the party, as authorized by law, on the ground that Refah engaged in activities that were opposed to Turkey’s commitment to secularism. Turkey had enshrined the principle of secularism in its constitution due to Turkey’s history with certain aspects of Islam, such as sharia law, which were not compatible with democracy. Secularism kept Turkey from preferring one religion or belief over another and formed the basis of freedom of conscience and equality under the law for citizens. Turkey’s acts to safeguard secularism were regarded as necessary in a democracy. Religions were confined to private observance. The problem with Refah was that Necmettin Erbakan (plaintiff), Refah’s chairman, and other leaders made troubling comments. Erbakan and the other leaders called for a theocratic system, the abolition of secularism in favor of a plurality of legal systems, the implementation of sharia law, and the use of force and bloodshed if necessary. For example, Erbakan stated that Muslims should give financial contributions to Refah because only Refah could establish the Koran’s superiority through jihad or holy war. Refah alleged a violation of the freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention). Article 11(2) permitted restrictions that were legally prescribed and necessary in a democratic society. The European Commission on Human Rights referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights (the court).