The Constitutional Court Has Decided To Cancel The Emblem Of The Voice Of Turkey Party

Stating that the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party, which was founded later, could cause confusion, authorities of the Democratic Left Party have applied to the Constitutional Court for the invalidation of the emblem of the Party in question and its renouncement from the political party registry.

The Constitutional Court has assessed whether there is a possibility of confusion between the emblems of these two political parties in addition to the similarity of the dove figures with their wings spread while flying in the same direction on both emblems.

“Decision of the Constitutional Court” dated 21/04/2022 on the subject

Docket No: 2022/2 (Miscellaneous Files)

Decision Number: 2022/1

Decision Date: 21/4/2022

REQUESTING PARTY: The Secretary General of the Democratic Left Party, Müzeyyen OKUR

SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST: The present request is that the Voice of Turkey Party emblem be declared null and void and be renounced from the political party registry asserting that it is non-compliant with Article 96 of the Political Parties Law dated 22/4/1983 and numbered 2820.

I. JUSTIFICATION OF THE REQUEST

In summary, the application petition of the Secretary General of the Democratic Left Party states that the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party, which was established later, is similar, causing confusion and that the nullity of the emblem of the mentioned Party and requests a decision for renunciation from the political party registry.

II. OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ‘S OFFICE

In summary, the opinion of the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office; states that the size of the pigeon figures on both emblems are similar and, their colors are white, their wings are open and flying in the same direction, further arguing that the Voice of Turkey Party emblem is similar to that of Democratic Left Party in a way to create confusion, both political parties are likely to be confused with each other, and therefore the Court should decide to accept the request for the nullity of the Voice of Turkey Party emblem and its renunciation from the political party registry.

III. PARTY’S DEFENSE

In summary, in the opinion of the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office; stated that mentioning the presence of the same symbol on emblems would lead to confusion when there are different features that can be noticed at first glance and would lead to unnecessary and excessive restriction of the Constitutional principles that the political parties shall operate freely and “the right to choose emblem” as an extension thereof; further stated that the pigeon figures in the emblems of the said Party and the Democratic Left Party had different wing and tail shapes and that the pigeon figure in the emblem of their Parties carried an olive branch, additionally clarifying that there was no proximity between the said Party and the Democratic Left Party that would cause any confusion in terms of historical or political heritage and argued that the nullity of this Party’s emblem and the rejection of the request for the renunciation from the political parties registry should be decided.

IV. LEGAL ASSESSMENT

1. The application of the Secretary General of the Democratic Left Party, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the defense of the Voice of Turkey Party, the report prepared by the Rapporteur Burak FIRAT, the relevant rules of the Constitution and laws, their justifications and other documents were read and examined, and the following decisions were made:
2. The requesting Democratic Left Party became a legal entity on 14/11/1985, and the Voice of Turkey Party, whose emblem was asked to be decided null and renunciate from the political party registry, became a legal entity by submitting the declaration and its annexes to the Ministry of Interior on 31/3/2022.
3. In the third paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, the provision that “Political parties are established without prior permission and continue their activities within the provisions of the Constitution and the law” remains valid, and in the last paragraph of Article 69, it is stated that the establishment and work of political parties shall be regulated by law within the framework of the principles in the said article.
4. In the first paragraph of Article 96 of the Political Parties Law dated 22/4/1983 and numbered 2820, titled “The party names and signs that cannot be used,” which regulates the principles related to political parties, it is stated that “… the names, emblems, nicknames, badges and similar signs of political parties registered in the political party registry shall not be used by another political party in the same way or in a way that will cause confusion…”.
5. On the other hand, in the third paragraph of Article 104 of the Law numbered 2820, titled “Application for other reasons,” “… the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office applies to the Constitutional Court ex officio or directly by the relevant political party for the names, emblems and nicknames of political parties registered in the political party registry against the political party that accepts or uses them in the same way or in a way that will cause confusion. The Constitutional Court shall make an examination no later than thirty days from the date of application regarding the names, emblems and nicknames according to the priority of registration in the political party registry if a violation against the first paragraph of Article 96 of this Law is detected, the nullity of the names, emblems and nicknames and their renunciation from the political party registry shall be decided. “
6. According to the aforementioned regulations, a party is prohibited from using the emblem of another party registered in the political party registry in the same way or in a way that causes confusion. There are no legal barriers against the use of a shape or figure in the emblem of a party registered in the political party registry by another party, provided that it does not cause confusion.
7. It is perfectly natural for political parties to clarify their messages and accordingly to use shapes or figures that reflect and summarize the ideals they aim for in their emblems in terms of expressing the adoption of the values that the targeted electorate attaches importance to. However, the parties should use these shapes or figures in a way that does not cause any confusion with the emblems of the parties previously registered in the political party registry. The emblem to be used by a party should not give the impression of another party and should not cause misperceptions or misunderstandings. As the names and nicknames of political parties, their emblems should be clear and should not lead people to confuse a political party with another political party.
8. When the emblem of the requesting Democratic Left Party is examined, one can see that there is a pigeon figure with both wings open on a rectangular blue background; the emblem and this figure are surrounded by a white rectangle. In the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party, there is a pigeon figure with an olive branch in its mouth on a dark blue background and both wings open. Although the pigeon figure in the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party carries a green olive branch in its mouth, unlike the other, it was assessed that the dominant figure of the emblem is the pigeon, and the emblems may cause the voter to misperceive when it is considered that the pigeon figure in both party emblems is approximately the same size, the same color and the wings are open in the same direction.
9. Within the framework of these findings, when the emblems used by the Democratic Left Party and Turkey’s Voice Party are evaluated together, it is concluded that the emblem currently used by Turkey’s Voice Party is similar to the emblem used by the Democratic Left Party and it is not possible to distinguish it from the Democratic Left Party emblem in a way that does not cause hesitation.
10. For the reasons explained, as the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party is understood to be against the Law no 2820 Article 96, the nullity of the emblem of the mentioned Party and the acceptance of the request for its abandonment from the political party registry is required.

Zühtü ARSLAN, Kadir ÖZKAYA, Engin YILDIRIM and Selahaddin MENTEŞ did not agree with this opinion.

V. JUDGEMENT

Due to the fact that the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party is non-compliant with the first paragraph of Article 96 of the Political Parties Law dated 22/4/1983 and numbered 2820, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 104 of the same Law, its nullity and cancellation from the political party registry were decided on 21/4/2022 by majority with the dissential votes of Zühtü ARSLAN, Kadir ÖZKAYA, Engin YILDIRIM and Selahaddin MENTEŞ.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DISSENTIAL VOTE

1. Upon the request of the Democratic Left Party, the Voice of Turkey Party emblem has been declared null and void and renounced from the political party registry on the grounds that it is similar in a way that may cause confusion.
2. In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, “Political parties are established without prior permission and continue their activities within the provisions of the Constitution and the law.” In the first paragraph of Article 96 of the Political Parties Law numbered 2820, it is stated that “… the names, emblems, nicknames, badges and similar signs of political parties registered in the political party registry will not be used by another political party in the same way or in a way that will cause confusion…
3. Accordingly, the emblem that is prohibited from being used must be the same as the emblem used by another party or similar in a way that leads to confusion. The reason for the prohibition of confusion is to prevent people from confusing a political party with another political party by ensuring that as well as the names and nicknames of political parties, their emblems are clear.
4. However, it should be noted that political parties have wide freedom to use the names, nicknames and emblems that reflect their ideology and that they think will give the best message to the voters. In this context, there are no legal barriers against the use of a shape or figure in the emblem of a party registered in the political party registry by another party, provided that it does not cause confusion. Therefore, what is prohibited by Article 96 of the Law No. 2820 is not the use of the same shape or figures in the emblem but their use in a way that gives rise to confusion.
5. The Constitutional Court has stated in many decisions that the use of similar names and emblems is not prohibited for political parties unless they cause confusion. For example, the request that the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office stating that the name of “Turkey Union Party” was similar to that of “Union of Turks Party,” which was established earlier. Therefore, the request for a decision on the name’s nullity and renunciation from the political party registry was declined on the grounds that “the names of the two parties differed from each other both semantically and phonetically to the extent that they did not cause any confusion” (AYM, E.2016/12 (Miscellaneous Cases), K.2017/1, 18/01/2019, § 7). In a more recent decision, the Constitutional Court ruled that the two political party emblems using the “heart” and “star” figures are not similar in a way that causes confusion, and it is possible to distinguish them in a way that does not cause hesitation (Constitutional Court, E.2020/5 (Miscellaneous Cases), K.2021/1 14/01/2021, §§ 7, 8).
6. In the light of these explanations, when the emblems of Turkey’s Voice Party, which is claimed to use the emblem that gives rise to confusion with the Democratic Left Party, are examined, it is difficult to say that they are the same or similar in a way that they give rise to confusion. As stated in the majority decision, one can see that there is a pigeon figure with two wings open on a rectangular blue background in the emblem of the requesting party, and this is surrounded by a white rectangle. In the emblem, which is said to cause confusion, there is a pigeon figure with both wings open on a dark blue background with an olive branch in its mouth (§ 8).
7. It is clear that the emblem whose nullity and abandonment were requested is different from the emblem of the requesting party in many ways. First of all, pigeon figures and background colors are not the same, and it is understood that the white rectangular frame in the emblem of the requesting party does not exist in the emblem of the other party. More importantly, the emblem, which is judged to give rise to confusion, unlike the other, includes a pigeon figure with a green olive branch in its mouth. Considering the color and size of this olive branch, one can see that the two figures are easily distinguishable and, therefore, not similar in a way that causes confusion.
8. For the reasons explained, I do not agree with the opposite decision of the majority, as I think that the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party is not confusing.

   
   President
   Zühtü ARSLAN

COUNTERVOTE

1. The General Secretariat of the Democratic Left Party requested that the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party, which was established later, is similar to its own emblems in a way that it creates confusion and that the nullity of the emblem of the mentioned Party and its renunciation from the political party registry be decided; the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office gave an opinion in line with the request, and the Court decided to accept the request by the majority.
2. For the reasons explained below, we could not participate in the decision based on the majority opinion.
3. In the fourth paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, the provision that “Political parties are established without prior permission and continue their activities within the provisions of the Constitution and the law” remains valid, and in the last paragraph of Article 69, it is stated that the establishment and operation of political parties shall be regulated by law within the framework of the principles in the said article.
4. In the first paragraph of Article 96 of the Political Parties Law dated 22/4/1983 and numbered 2820, titled “The party names and signs that cannot be used,” which regulates the principles related to political parties, it is stated that “… the names, emblems, nicknames, badges and similar signs of political parties registered in the political party registry shall not be used by another political party in the same way or in a way that will cause confusion…”.
5. Accordingly, a party cannot use the emblem of another party registered in the political party registry in the same way or in a way that causes confusion. However, it is possible to use a shape or figure in the emblem of a party registered in the political party registry by another party in a way that does not cause confusion. There are no legal barriers against this.
6. On the other hand, it is perfectly natural for political parties to use shapes or figures that reflect and summarize the ideals they aim for in their emblems in terms of ensuring awareness in the eyes of voters, making the messages to be given more understandable and expressing the adoption of the values that the addressed electorate attributes importance to. However, as mentioned before, these shapes or figures should be used in a way that does not cause any confusion with the emblems of the parties previously registered in the political party registry. The emblem to be used by a party should not evoke the name of another party and should not cause misperceptions or misunderstandings. As the names and nicknames of political parties, their emblems should be clear and should not cause people to confuse a political party with another political party.
7. When the emblem of the requesting Democratic Left Party is examined, one can see that there is a pigeon figure with both wings open on a rectangular blue background; the emblem and this figure are surrounded by a white rectangle. In the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party, there is a pigeon figure with an olive branch in its mouth on a dark blue background and both wings open. The pigeon figures on both emblems are approximately the same size. However, the pigeon figure in the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party carries a green olive branch in its mouth, unlike the other. Considering the size and color of the olive branch and the entire emblem, it is noticeable and remarkable at first glance. In this respect, the olive branch carried in the mouth of the pigeon figure on the emblem is more distinctive than whether the pigeon figures are looking in the same direction or whether their wings are open.
8. Within the framework of these findings, when the emblems used by the Democratic Left Party and Turkey’s Voice Party are evaluated together, it is concluded that the emblem currently used by Turkey’s Voice Party is not similar to the emblem used by the Democratic Left Party and it is possible to distinguish it from the Democratic Left Party emblem in a way that does not cause hesitation.
9. For the reasons explained, as it is understood that the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party is not against the Law no 2820 Article 96, I do not agree with the opposite decision based on the majority opinion with the view that the nullity of the emblem of the mentioned Party and the rejection of the request for its abandonment from the political party registry should be decided.

   
   Acting President
   Kadir ÖZKAYA

JUSTIFICATION FOR DISSENTIAL VOTE

1. In the first paragraph of Article 96 of the Political Parties Law dated 22/4/1983 and numbered 2820, titled “The party names and signs that will not be used,” it is regulated that the names, emblems, nicknames, badges and similar signs of political parties registered in the political party registry shall not be used by another political party in the same way or in a way that will cause confusion. Accordingly, it is not possible for a party to use the emblem of another party registered in the political party registry in the same way or in a way that causes confusion. On the other hand, there are no legal barriers against the use of a shape or figure in the emblem of a party registered in the political party registry by another party, provided that it does not cause confusion.
2. Political parties use shapes or figures that echo, reflect and summarize the messages, expressions, ideas and ideologies they want to convey to society and voters in a striking and memorable way and develop a sense of loyalty to the party among their supporters and voters as emblems, nicknames or logos. These shapes or figures are symbols in which the party identity is expressed in a clear and simple way. However, the necessity of using the shapes or figures representing the party in a way that does not cause any confusion with the emblems of the parties previously registered in the political party registry remains a requirement both legally and in terms of fair political competition. It is expected that the emblem to be used by a party does not evoke another party association, does not create an impression, and does not cause misconceptions, confusion or misunderstandings of the voters’ opinion.
3. When we look at the emblem of the Democratic Left Party, which objects to the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party, one can see that there is a pigeon figure with both wings open on a rectangular blue background in the emblem and this figure is surrounded by a white rectangle. In the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party, there is a pigeon figure with an olive branch in its mouth on a dark blue background and both wings open. The pigeon figures on both emblems are approximately the same size. However, the pigeon figure in the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party carries a green olive branch in its mouth, unlike the other. Considering the size and color of the olive branch and the entire emblem, it is noticeable and remarkable at first glance. In addition, the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party is located on a darker blue, and the full name of the party is written under the abbreviation. All of these issues differentiate the emblem of the objecting Democratic Left Party and the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party.
4. Voters may confuse party names, abbreviations and emblems for a variety of reasons. Due to the similarity of names and abbreviations, the right to establish a political party and engage in political activity, which is one of the most fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution, should not be restricted. The fact that a political party is forced to leave the name, abbreviation and emblem that it thinks best expresses itself means an immeasurable intervention that is incompatible with the principles of freedom of expression and organization and democracy.
5. As a result, when the emblems used by the Democratic Left Party and Turkey’s Voice Party are evaluated together, it is concluded that the emblem currently used by Turkey’s Voice Party is not similar to the emblem used by the Democratic Left Party.

   
   Member
   Engin YILDIRIM

COUNTERVOTE

1. Stating that the Voice of Turkey Party’s emblem is in non-compliance with the Article 96 of the political parties law, the nullity and renunciation of the political party registry has been decided by the Honourable Majority of the Constitutional Court. I did not agree with the opinion of the Honourable majority for the reasons I have stated below.
2. In the decision of the Constitutional Court, the justification of the request, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the defense of the Voice of Turkey Party are specified in detail.
3. In the Article 96 of the Political Parties Law numbered 2820, titled “Names and signs of the parties that will not be used,” it is stated in the first paragraph of the article that “… the names, emblems, nicknames, badges and similar signs of political parties registered in the political party registry shall not be used by another political party in the same way or in a way that will cause confusion… “ In Article 104 has the following provision: “… if non-compliance against 96th article of the law is detected, the nullity of the names, emblems and nicknames and their renunciation from the political party registry shall be decided.”
4. As can be understood from the legal regulations, a party is prohibited from using the emblem of another party registered in the political party registry or in a way that causes confusion. It is clear that a shape or figure in the emblem of a party registered in the political party registry can be used, provided that it does not cause confusion by the other party.
5. When the emblem of the requesting Democratic Left Party is examined, one can see that there is a pigeon figure with both wings open on a rectangular blue background; the emblem and this figure are surrounded by a white rectangle. In the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party, there is a pigeon figure with an olive branch in its mouth on a dark blue background and both wings open. The pigeon figures on both emblems are approximately the same size. However, the pigeon figure in the emblem of the Voice of Turkey Party carries a green olive branch in its mouth, unlike the other. Considering the size and color of the olive branch and the entire emblem, it is noticeable and remarkable at first glance. In this respect, the olive branch carried in the mouth of the pigeon figure on the emblem is more distinctive than whether the pigeon figures are looking in the same direction or whether their wings are open.
6. Within the framework of these findings, when the emblems used by the Democratic Left Party and Turkey’s Voice Party are evaluated together, it is concluded that the emblem currently used by Turkey’s Voice Party is not similar to the emblem used by the Democratic Left Party and it is possible to distinguish it from the Democratic Left Party emblem in a way that does not cause hesitation.
7. For the reasons explained, I did not agree with this view of the majority, as the emblem used by Turkey’s Voice Party was understood that it is not against the Law no 2820 Article 96.
   

   
   Member
   Selahaddin MENTEŞ