26 Jun The identity check used as pretext to prevent the applicants from participating in the demonstrations was not in accordance with the Convention

In the case the case of Alıcı and Others v. Turkey (application no. 70098/12, 24.05.2022) European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights and violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).

The case  concerned applicants, 22 Turkish nationals, who were members of the Eğitim-Sen trade union (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçiler Sendikası – the Education and Science Workers’ Union) who were arrested while travelling by bus from Adana to Ankara to take part in a demonstration organised by trade unions against a bill being debated in Parliament to amend the law on public-sector trade unions and reform the general education system. They incurred an administrative fine for withholding their identities from the police who stopped their bus. 

The Court found that the main reason for arresting and detaining the applicants had been to prevent them from travelling to Ankara and thus from participating in demonstrations which had been declared unlawful. In particular the Court observed that the applicants had not been released until 2.50 p.m. on 28 March 2012, whereas their identities had been determined by 4.50 a.m. Nothing had warranted holding them after their identities had been established. Furthermore the police had advised the applicants that all the demonstrations scheduled to take place
in the capital on 28 and 29 March 2012 had been disallowed for reasons of security and public order and had told them to return home, a course of action which presupposed a suspicion that the applicants would disrupt security and public order if they demonstrated as planned. However, the authorities had not shown convincingly that the applicants would in all likelihood have participated in the commission of a concrete and specific offence had they not been prevented from doing so by arrest or detention for an identity check or other purpose.

The Court reiterated that an arrest would be acceptable only where fulfilment of an “obligation prescribed by law” could not be secured by milder means, which was not the case in the present case. Accordingly, the applicants’ arrest and continued detention had not been compatible with Article 5 of the Convention. 

The Court reiterated that the authorities had a duty to take appropriate measures with regard to lawful demonstrations to ensure their peaceful conduct and the safety of all citizens. In this case it appeared that the only measure that had in fact been taken vis-à-vis the applicants and other demonstrators had been to prevent them outright from travelling to Ankara, a measure which the Court regarded as disproportionate and unnecessary for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others (the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities). Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).

Reference from the official website oft he European Court of Human Rights