The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has reached a decision on Tuesday regarding the application of Kurdish politician Osman Baydemir, a former Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) member, who faced disciplinary action for mentioning “Kurdistan” in the Turkish Parliament.
Upon Baydemir’s application, the court has ruled that Turkey violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression.
As a result, Turkey has been ordered to provide compensation amounting to €16.957 ($18,400) euros to Baydemir. Notably, even Judge Saadet Yüksel, who has typically sided with Turkey in previous cases, concurred with the verdict of violation on this occasion.
Taking to his Twitter account to comment on the ruling, Baydemir stated in Kurdish, “This decision holds significant historical importance in the struggle for freedom of thought. It is the success of the legitimacy of Kurdistan, which lives in the hearts and dreams of millions of Kurds.”
Baydemir, former mayor of the Kurdish-majority southeastern province of Diyarbakır (Amed), made a speech during the budget discussions in the Turkish Parliament in 2017 when he was the HDP spokesman. He stated, “As a representative coming from Kurdistan, my desire is that this roof should be a common roof for both Turks and Kurds.”
Following his statement, when asked in Parliament, “Where is Kurdistan?” Baydemir placed his hand on his heart and replied, “Here it is, Mrs Speaker, right here.”
As a result, the Deputy Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly proposed temporary expulsion from the Parliament based on the Parliament’s Internal Regulations, citing the need to refrain from making definitions about Turkey’s administrative structure, which is based on the indivisible unity of the country and its people as defined in the Constitution. The Parliament voted and Baydemir received a two-session expulsion penalty.
Since it was not possible to challenge General Assembly decisions, Baydemir directly appealed to the Turkish Constitutional Court, arguing that his punishment for the words spoken during legislative activities violated freedom of expression.
After reviewing the case, the Constitutional Court ruled “incompetence,” stating that the disciplinary penalty did not fall under the parliament’s decisions that allowed judicial review in accordance with the Constitution.
