Individual Application

The Facts

In 2014 and 2015, on two different occasions, the applicants wished to organise a gathering in Taksim Square, İstanbul, on the occasion of the 1 May, Labour and Solidarity Day (Labour Day). To that end, the applicants submitted petitions to the İstanbul Governor’s Office (Governor’s Office), notifying that they would stand in silence and have a celebration after laying a wreath at the Taksim Monument and placing a carnation at the Kazancı Slope. The Governor’s Office rejected the applicants’ requests to hold a celebration in both 2014 and 2015 for reasons of public order and security whereas authorised a wreath-laying, issuance of a press release and a symbolic celebration, at the Taksim Square, by confederations and affiliated unions, political parties, trade associations and various non-governmental organisations to celebrate Labour Day, as per Article 2 of the Law no. 2429 on National and Public Holidays.

As reported by the applicants, they staged a march so as to observe the Labour Day on 1 May 2014 and 1 May 2015 in Taksim Square, İstanbul. However, they were stopped by the police officers and anti-riot vehicles (TOMA) deployed to barricade Taksim Square. Filing a criminal complaint with the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (chief public prosecutor’s office), the applicants maintained that many people participating in the gathering and demonstration march were wounded due to the use of tear-gas grenade, rubber bullet and pressurised water. The chief public prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution about the high-level public officials, who had been complained of, in the incidents of both 2014 and 2015. The challenges to the impugned decisions were rejected by the incumbent magistrate judges.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicants claimed that their right to hold meetings and demonstration marches and the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated due to the prevention of the demonstration march intended to be organised in Taksim Square on the occasion of the Labour Day, the use of disproportionate force by the police officers and the lack of effectiveness of the investigation into the incident. 

The Court’s Assessment

Taken in conjunction with the 1 May, Labour and Solidarity Day, Taksim Square having a symbolic value is of importance for the applicants, other unions and workers. Therefore, Taksim Square, that is one of the constituent elements of the labour and trade union culture, is a manifestation not only of the solidarity among those present there on 1 May, but also of collective memory of the workers. In this regard, every person regarding himself as a part of that culture is entitled to be present in Taksim Square on 1 May so as to personally experience such atmosphere at the Square and transmit this experience to future generations. Due to the identification of 1 May with Taksim Square, any limitation imposed with respect thereto may also lead to the restriction of ideas and thoughts intended to be expressed.

In the present case, one of the reasons relied on by the administration for the impugned ban, thus the impugned intervention, is that Taksim Square is not among the places where meetings and demonstration marches may be organised in İstanbul. However, given the importance attached -under the particular circumstances of the present case- to the place for achieving the purposes of organising the meeting and demonstration march, the categorical ban on freedom to choose a gathering area was considered unacceptable in constitutional terms.

During the impugned incident, the police officers had intervened with the demonstrators before the demonstration marches were staged. The reports and documents drawn up with respect to the incident did not involve any assessment of whether the events had caused delay in the performance of certain activities, disturbed public order or undermined the security measures taken. The administrative and judicial authorities failed to consider the content, nature, purpose and duration of the impugned gatherings and the number of possible participants. Nor did they assess whether such a gathering in Taksim Square would obstruct daily life to an excessive and intolerable extent; whether it was possible to take any measure that would enable the conduct of such an event at that area; and whether the gathering place to be offered as alternative would render ineffective the right to assembly. In the present case, it has been thus observed that the administration banned the gathering at the said area without demonstrating any real threat that would necessitate an absolute ban on holding meetings and demonstration marches in Taksim Square on 1 May and also addressing whether any measures could be taken so as to enable the demonstrators to organise the event there. It also appears that the police officers intervened with the groups on the basis of the impugned bans, without showing any tolerance for securing the exercise of said right.

Consequently, the Court has concluded that no relevant and sufficient reasons were adduced to demonstrate that the interference with the applicant’s right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, which is in the form of dispersing by use of force the applicants wishing to observe Labour Day in 2014 and 2015 in Taksim Square, met a pressing social need and was necessary in a democratic society.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.