II. Foreseeability of Article 220/7 of the Turkish Penal Code: Bakır and Others v. Turkey and İmret v. Turkey (no. 2) Cases
In the judgments of Bakır and Others v. Turkey and İmret v. Turkey (no. 2) (applications…
The applicant in the second case was a local politician who had attended several…
The Court focused on the “foreseeability” requirement in these two cases as it did…
At the relevant time, Article 220 § 7 of the Criminal Code provided as follows: “Anyone who aids an (illegal) organisation knowingly and willingly, even if he does…
In its judgments of Bakır and Others and İmret, the Court first noted that paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 220 did not appear to be fundamentally different in terms of their construction. The Court observed that the texts of both paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 220 of the Criminal Code tied the status of membership of an illegal organisation to the mere facts of a person having acted “on behalf” of…
The Court stated, as in its Işıkırık judgment, that the notion of foreseeability required that a rule was formulated with sufficient precision and afforded a measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities and against the extensive application of a restriction to any party’s detriment. The Court then made an assessment almost identical to the assessment made in the Işıkırık judgment…
EN
TR
