Read on Twitter
I am very pleased to read that the #ECtHR GC judgment rectified some major errors and omissions of the Chamber judgment in the case Demirtaş v Turkey (No 2) (1)
The Chamber judgment shockingly held that freedom of expression aspects of the case were not necessary to examine. The GC judgment correctly identified this as a core issue at stake. (2)
The Chamber judgment refused to review the unconstitutional constitutional amendment concerning the lifting of immunities of members of parliament. The GC did carry out the necessary review of whether this amendment met the quality of law requirements under the Convention. (3)
The Chamber judgment failed to review whether political speeches of a member of parliament can constitute the basis of reasonable suspicion within the scope of Article 5. The GC judgment now carries out this review. (4)
The Chamber judgment took into account reasons that were not part of the initial judgment to detain the applicant as basis of reasonable suspicion. The Grand Chamber correctly holds that 5(1)c review must focus on the initial judgment of detention. (5)
The Chamber judgment offered an incomplete account of political developments in Turkey in the last decade. The Grand Chamber judgment offers a fuller picture of the chronology of events (6).
The Chamber judgment identified ulterior political purposes to be present at an unknown time after the initial detention of the applicant. The GC judgment finds that these ulterior purposes to be present on the day of initial detention and every single day after that (7).
This case shows how important it is to request referrals to the GC in major rule of law cases. The major errors and omissions of a Chamber judgment is a cause for concern. (8)
