Tag: EU Progress Report

  • Readers consider Turkey unwelcome in the EU

    Readers consider Turkey unwelcome in the EU

    Readers echoed sentiments of the European Commission after the ruling body criticized Turkey over perceived shortfalls in the country’s EU membership bid.

    The following comments reflect the views of DW-WORLD.DE readers. Not all reader comments have been published. DW-WORLD.DE reserves the right to edit for length and appropriateness of content.

    Opinion: A guilty conscience is no basis for membership

    EU criticizes Turkey in annual report on membership hopefuls

    I could not imagine a worse situation. Turkey is unique! Its history, culture, religion are so far removed from the rest of the EU. It would lose its heart and soul. The “man in the street” Turk does not want EU membership. — Sue, Australia

    I believe Turkey should be allowed to join the European Union provided that it recognizes and supports a reunified Republic of Cyprus. Greeks and Turks on the island have wanted reconciliation for decades, but one which is based on relevant UN resolutions, EU norms, and human rights. In the past, proposals were perceived to facilitate outsiders, like Britain, Turkey, Greece or the United States. The onus is on Turkey, which is the applicant nation, and the only one in the world that doesn’t recognize the legitimate rights of all Cypriots. — Nick, Canada

    Turkey should never be allowed to join the European Union. This country still denies its past atrocities against other people like the Armenian genocide, unlawfully occupies part of the former sovereign republic of Cyprus, calls itself secular but really profoundly Islamic (which heavily influences government), and persecutes non-Muslims. It is a fact that Christians in Turkey keep their religion secret and going to church for worship is a safety hazard! — Irma, Philippines

    Turkey should definitely not join the EU and not given special status either. The EU is not just an economic union and membership should not be based only on economics and strategic interests. The EU should and is based on values and morality which Turkey does not cherish. It is a country which has been occupying by force part of another member state Cyprus, since 1974. The part of Cyprus they occupied they cleansed of the Greek population and brought in settlers from Turkey. They systematically destroyed all Christian churches and looted most Christian archaeological sites in an attempt to change the demographics of the island. Freedom of religion within Turkey itself does not exist. Turkey seriously lags behind in areas like freedom of press, freedom of expression, women’s rights and even trade unions. They suppress the Kurdish minority of the country and it is a 99 percent Muslim country because even in their recent history (Armenian genocide of 1915) they literally exterminated all other religions by killing millions of people. Worse is that they do not even want to admit this and apologize like a European country should do. On top of these they are a country with a population of more than 70 million which would change the balance of power within the EU itself and yes they are Muslim with a completely different culture while Europe is Christian. If Turkey is allowed in and then Syria, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria and Egypt ask to join the EU as well what will tell them? Is this a European Union or not? — Sam, Great Britain

    Turkey should not join the EU. The EU is a union based both on morality as well as interests. Morality should be as important as interests in politics and especially within a union if it is to function. Law, order and morality at the end of the day help everyone. Acting immorally in the short run seems to be beneficial but at the end hurts everyone. Order is better than chaos. Turkey has issues both internally and externally including the occupation of Cyprus. Turkey should first withdraw its military from Cyprus and then maybe considered to join the EU. — Aliki, Great Britain

    The people of Europe do not want Turkey in the union. The Americans want Turkey in the EU in order to keep their world domination. We should not change the demographics of our countries so that America and NATO keep their influence. Europe should start thinking of creating its own alliance and not depend on NATO so much which quite often forces the EU to go against our will and against our moral values. — Ted, Great Britain

    Compiled by Stuart Tiffen

    Editor: Rob Turner

    via Readers consider Turkey unwelcome in the EU | Reader Response | Deutsche Welle | 12.11.2010.

  • Turkish Government and Opposition React to EU Commission’s Progress Report

    Turkish Government and Opposition React to EU Commission’s Progress Report

    Turkish Government and Opposition React to EU Commission’s Progress Report

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 206

    November 12, 2010

    By: Saban Kardas

    On November 9, the European Commission published its 2010 progress report on Turkey’s performance in the accession process. Against the background of the declining popularity of EU membership in Turkey, the report has raised interest in the EU process. Yet, it remains to be seen if this renewed attention might really re-energize Turkey’s long-stalled membership drive.

    Turkish-EU relations entered a period of stalemate in the second half of the decade, which followed a period where the rapid pace of reforms helped Turkey secure a date for the start of accession talks in 2005. The causes of this deadlock have appeared enigmatic, as both the Turkish government and the EU highlighted each other’s mistakes. European circles criticized the slow-down in the Turkish government’s political reform agenda, and its uncompromising position on the Cyprus dispute. Ankara’s resistance to opening its ports to Greek Cypriot vessels was a case in point from the EU perspective. For the Turkish government, by contrast, factors internal to the EU were largely responsible for the slow progress. The EU was unable to remove the obstacles created by some anti-Turkish member states, such as the Greek Cypriot or French veto against the opening of negotiating chapters or the debate on “privileged partnership” initiated by the French and German leaders. More importantly, the Turkish government has complained that the EU has failed to fully reciprocate the reforms delivered by Turkey, and has treated the Turkish Cypriots unjustly (EDM, June 29, 2009).

    As the mutual blame game led nowhere, there were concerns as to whether Turkish-EU relations might grind to a halt. The debate following the 2008 progress report, where the EU again urged Turkey to take reforms more seriously, coincided with many international experts advancing the provocative argument that 2009 would be a make or break year (EDM, January 12, 2009). Although the Turkish government streamlined its efforts for preparation towards membership in 2009, through the establishment of a new ministerial post for EU affairs, nothing the Turkish government accomplished was close to a breakthrough that could end the stalemate. As a result, Turkish-EU relations remained in its rather stagnant state throughout 2009 and 2010, though none of the parties dared to take steps that might end the membership process.

    The 2010 progress report did not contain any elements of surprise, as it was largely written in a balanced manner in both its criticism and praise of the Turkish government’s performance (www.avrupa.info.tr, November 9; Hurriyet, November 10). Overall, it was based on the commission’s earlier position that Turkey will have to recognize that it is subject to a rigorous set of criteria for accession, similar to those applied to other candidates, and Turkey should focus on maintaining a convincing track record and avoid any expectation of short-cuts. Similarly, the EU is also expected to be credible so that it could provide Turkey with a legitimate membership prospect. The report also retained another theme which has attracted greater sympathy in recent years, that Turkey’s new foreign policy activism could be an asset for EU’s external relations.

    Overall, the report underlined Turkey’s mixed progress towards aligning its own regulations with the EU. While the EU recognized the improvements in immigration, it also underlined other areas where Turkey needed to undertake further reforms. Again, in foreign policy issues, while the EU welcomed Turkey’s constructive role and contribution to energy security, it also noted that no major initiatives were undertaken on the Cyprus issue, urging it to play a more constructive role

    In a development which was welcomed by the opposition parties and other groups critical of the government, the report pointed out Turkey’s shortcomings on many issues pertaining to political and cultural rights. It raised growing concerns about the freedom of the press, the ongoing problems in the treatment of minorities, and the inability of the government to produce any tangible results through the Kurdish initiative. While the report welcomed the steps towards democratization and supported the recent constitutional referendum package, which introduced some changes to the composition of high courts, it expressed concern over presidential appointments to those institutions as well as some university presidents. In anticipation of the government’s likely drive for rewriting the constitution following the 2011 elections, EU sources also noted the importance of building consensus for future constitutional reforms.

    The opponents of the AKP preferred to highlight those aspects of the EU’s view of Turkey, which are critical of the government’s track record on individual rights. They particularly highlight parts of the report listing the prosecution of journalists, writers or politicians for their expression of opinions. Also, many experts attending a panel discussion in Ankara on November 11 agreed that, though the report overall offered a balanced account of Turkey’s progress, its critical tone towards certain practices of the government has never been clear.

    Ironically, government sources also welcomed the report, arguing that it largely met Turkey’s expectations. Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, interpreted the report’s affirmation of Turkey’s new foreign policy as an indication that discussion on whether Turkey was shifting its strategic axis was baseless. Yet, Davutoglu criticized the EU for its unfair assessment of the situation in Cyprus, arguing that the current situation on the island was not of Turkey’s own making and that Ankara could not be expected to solve the problem in isolation. A press release posted on foreign ministry’s website reiterated Davutoglu’s views on the issue (www.mfa.gov.tr, November 9).

    Similarly, Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and State Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Bagis, were positive about the report as the EU’s affirmation of Turkey’s place in the EU. Responding to the criticism in relation to limiting individual rights and freedom of expression, Erdogan denied those charges, arguing that there cannot be a completely uncontrolled exercise of freedom in any democracy. Regarding the specific cases of rights’ violations or legal investigations mentioned in the report, Erdogan maintained that they were committed by the judiciary, not the government.

    Overall, both the government and the opposition seem to prefer to maintain their commitment to the EU, because they can manipulate it to support their own positions politically, as they see fit.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-government-and-opposition-react-to-eu-commissions-progress-report/

  • Turkey – Europe Seeks Changes on Speech Freedoms – NYTimes.com

    Turkey – Europe Seeks Changes on Speech Freedoms – NYTimes.com

    By SEBNEM ARSU

    Turkey must make strides in safeguarding freedom of speech and of the press if it wants to join the European Union, says a report released Tuesday on the country’s progress in complying with the union’s standards. Among the examples cited in the European Commission’s report were a multibillion-dollar tax penalty on a media group that has been critical of the government and the jailing of more than 100 journalists under a law that limits criticism of the state.

    via Turkey – Europe Seeks Changes on Speech Freedoms – NYTimes.com.

  • EU CRITICIZES TURKEY IN ANNUAL REPORT ON MEMBERSHIP HOPEFULS

    EU CRITICIZES TURKEY IN ANNUAL REPORT ON MEMBERSHIP HOPEFULS

    By Author: Mark Hallam

    turkey eu 0The EU has called on Turkey to open up trade with Cyprus, to better promote gender equality and human rights, and to toe the line on foreign policy issues in a lukewarm appraisal of Ankara’s path towards EU membership.

    The European Union announced on Tuesday that only one of seven candidates for membership in the bloc is close to achieving its goal.

    “The negotiations with Croatia are now in their final phase,” the European Commission said in its annual report on the progress of would-be EU members.

    The Commission pointed to widespread corruption and organized crime problems in other western Balkan applicant countries as the biggest hurdle to their joining the bloc in the short term, although it did announce that Montenegro was ready for full candidate status, saying the country’s democracy “is largely in line with European principles and standards.”

    Montenegro’s application has already been recognized by the EU, and with the Commission’s approval, member states will now debate whether to grant the country candidate status and begin the process of negotiating membership. Croatia, Iceland, Turkey and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are the four candidates that have already reached this final phase of the accession process.

    Turkey began its official negotiations five years ago, but the EU acknowledged in its report that the process has hit rather rocky ground.

    “Negotiations advanced, albeit rather slowly,” the Commission said of accession talks with Ankara.


    Several stumbling blocks

    Despite praising constitutional reforms designed to fight corruption, wrest some political power away from the military, and improve the protection of human rights as “a step in the right direction,” the Commission said that Turkey was still lagging behind in areas like press freedom, freedom of expression and religion, the rights of women and trade unions, and the integration of the Kurdish minority in the country.

    “The pace of reform in Turkey dictates the pace of the accession process,” German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in Berlin, shortly after the report was released.

    The European Commission also called on Turkey to open trade ties with Cyprus and redouble diplomatic efforts with the country, describing the need for progress in this area as “urgent.” EU member state Cyprus and Turkey are locked in a territorial dispute over the northern part of the island, which has been occupied by Turkish forces since 1974. Reunification talks have stalled, and Turkey says it will not open trade ties with Cyprus until the problem is resolved. And while Cyprus tries to slow Turkey’s accession into the EU, Turkey is using its membership of NATO to hamper Cyprus’ bid to join that alliance.

    Commission’s annual report is the sheer size of the country. A 2009 census put Turkey’s population at 72 million, which would make it the second most populous member of the bloc.

    “That means Turkey would be represented in the European Parliament with a number of MPs to reflect its size, and the size of its population would also mean a lot of weight in decisions in the Council of Ministers,” the head of the EU program at the German Council on Foreign Relations, Almut Moeller, told Deutsche Welle. Moeller said that EU insiders often talk about the influence Turkey would wield in the bloc, and the affect it would have on the larger countries and their power structure.

    “This is a sensitively calibrated order that has been around for a while now, and in the past we have only seen smaller and medium-sized countries entering the bloc. They have relatively little impact on the big players, but imagine what a country this size would mean for the old order, for the amount of power currently shared between France and Germany in the EU, for instance.”

    Gul: ‘Strategic imperative’ to let Turkey in

    Five years ago, there was an outpouring of pro-European sentiment and euphoria in Turkey when the country began the final phase of the EU accession process. But the mood seems to be souring as other applicants make much smoother process towards membership in the bloc.

    On Monday, Brussels announced plans to grant visa-free travel within the EU’s open-border Schengen zone to people from Albania and Bosnia, and the Turkish newspaper Haber Tuerk responded by proclaiming on Tuesday’s front page: “Everyone’s allowed into the EU, except us.”

    Citizens from every Balkan country except Kosovo, which some EU members consider a part of Serbia, are now free to travel within the EU’s open-border area, while Turks have to seek special visas.

    “The EU will not be weaker, but stronger both politically and economically with Turkey’s membership,” Turkish President Abdullah Gul said in a speech in London on Monday. “Given the fact that the international balance of power tends to shift towards the East and Asia, it is, indeed, a strategic imperative for the EU to have Turkey as a member.”

    Gul, speaking to the Chatham House think-tank after receiving the organization’s annual prize for statesmanship, said it was “sad to observe” that some European leaders did not recognize the role Turkey could play within the EU.

    “This short-sighted vision is the major impediment before the idea of the EU as a global actor, capable of assuming greater responsibilities on political and security issues, complementing its economic clout,” the Turkish president said.

    In his speech, Gul also announced that neighboring Iran had asked Turkey to host another round of talks with UN Security Council members and Germany on Tehran’s nuclear program, alluding to the diplomatic role his country might play for the EU.

    However, Turkey’s international activities were also singled out by the EU for veiled criticism on Tuesday, after the country defied the US and EU to vote against tougher UN sanctions for Iran earlier this year.

    “Turkey’s foreign policy has become more active in its wider neighborhood,” the commission’s report said. “This is an asset for the European Union, provided it is developed as a complement to Turkey’s accession process and in coordination with the EU.”

    DW

    http://eurodialogue.org/EU-criticizes-Turkey-in-annual-report-on-membership-hopefuls

  • “We Will Not Have To Wait Another 13 Years For EU Membership Based On Progress Report”

    “We Will Not Have To Wait Another 13 Years For EU Membership Based On Progress Report”

    Turkish State Minister and Chief Negotiator for EU talks Egemen Bagis has said that Turkey would not have to wait for another 13 years for EU membership based on the EU Progress Report published on Tuesday.

    Speaking at a meeting hosted by the Turkish Prime Ministry and attended by foreign journalists, Bagis said that the Turks began to smell EU membership.

    The fact that the EU Commission confirmed Turkey’s progress in all chapters is an harbinger of good days to come, Bagis underlined.

    The EU Progress Report gives the message that everyone supporting Turkey’s EU membership should support the process and all deficiencies within the frame of harmonizing Turkey to the EU should be dealt with by giving hand in hand, Bagis also said.

    AA

  • TURKEY 2010 PROGRESS REPORT

    TURKEY 2010 PROGRESS REPORT

    turkey progress report

    EN

    EN EN

    EUROPEAN COMMISSION

    Brussels, 9 November 2010

    SEC(2010) 1327

    COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

    TURKEY 2010 PROGRESS REPORT

    accompanying the

    COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

    TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

    Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2010-2011

    EN

    {COM(2010) 660}

    EN EN

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    1. Introduction……………………………………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    1.1. Preface…………………………………………………………….Error: Reference source not found

    1.2. Context……………………………………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    1.3. Relations between the EU and Turkey…………………Error: Reference source not found

    2. Political criteria………………………………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    2.1. Democracy and the rule of law…………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    2.2. Human rights and the protection of minorities………Error: Reference source not found

    2.3. Regional issues and international obligations……….Error: Reference source not found

    3. Economic criteria……………………………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    3.1. The existence of a functioning market economy…..Error: Reference source not found

    3.2. The capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union

    ……………………………………………………………………….Error: Reference source not found

    4. Ability to assume the obligations of membership….Error: Reference source not found

    4.1. Chapter 1: Free movement of goods……………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.2. Chapter 2: Freedom of movement for workers……..Error: Reference source not found

    4.3. Chapter 3: Right of establishment and freedom to provide services. . .Error: Reference

    source not found

    4.4. Chapter 4: Free movement of capital…………………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.5. Chapter 5: Public procurement……………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.6. Chapter 6: Company law……………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law…………………….Error: Reference source not found

    4.8. Chapter 8: Competition policy……………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.9. Chapter 9: Financial services……………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.10. Chapter 10: Information society and media………….Error: Reference source not found

    4.11. Chapter 11: Agriculture……………………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.12. Chapter 12: Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy.Error: Reference source

    not found

    4.13. Chapter 13: Fisheries…………………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.14. Chapter 14: Transport policy………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.15. Chapter 15: Energy……………………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    EN EN

    4.16. Chapter 16: Taxation…………………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.17. Chapter 17: Economic and monetary union………….Error: Reference source not found

    4.18. Chapter 18: Statistics…………………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.19. Chapter 19: Social policy and employment………….Error: Reference source not found

    4.20. Chapter 20: Enterprise and industrial policy…………Error: Reference source not found

    4.21. Chapter 21: Trans-European networks…………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.22. Chapter 22: Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments…………..Error:

    Reference source not found

    4.23. Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights……….Error: Reference source not found

    4.24. Chapter 24: Justice, freedom and security……………Error: Reference source not found

    4.25. Chapter 25: Science and research………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.26. Chapter 26: Education and culture………………………Error: Reference source not found

    4.27. Chapter 27: Environment…………………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.28. Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.29. Chapter 29: Customs Union……………………………….Error: Reference source not found

    4.30. Chapter 30: External relations…………………………….Error: Reference source not found

    4.31. Chapter 31: Foreign, security and defence policy….Error: Reference source not found

    4.32. Chapter 32: Financial control……………………………..Error: Reference source not found

    4.33. Chapter 33: Financial and budgetary provisions……Error: Reference source not found

    Statistical Annex……………………………………………………………Error: Reference source not found

    EN EN

    COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

    2010 Progress Report

    1. INTRODUCTION

    1.1. Preface

    Following the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997, the

    Commission has reported regularly to the Council and the Parliament.

    This report on progress made by Turkey in preparing for EU membership largely follows the

    same structure as in previous years. The report:

    – briefly describes the relations between Turkey and the Union;

    – analyses the situation in Turkey in terms of the political criteria for membership;

    – analyses the situation in Turkey on the basis of the economic criteria for membership;

    – reviews Turkey’s capacity to assume the obligations of membership, that is, the acquis

    expressed in the Treaties, the secondary legislation, and the policies of the Union.

    The period covered by this report is from early October 2009 to October 2010. Progress is

    measured on the basis of decisions taken, legislation adopted and measures implemented. As a

    rule, legislation or measures which are under preparation or awaiting Parliamentary approval

    have not been taken into account. This approach ensures equal treatment across all reports and

    permits an objective assessment.

    The report is based on information gathered and analysed by the Commission. In addition,

    many sources have been used, including contributions from the government of Turkey, the

    EU Member States, European Parliament reports1, and information from various international

    and non-governmental organisations.

    The Commission draws detailed conclusions regarding Turkey in its separate communication

    on enlargement2, based on the technical analysis contained in this report.

    1.2. Context

    The Helsinki European Council of December 1999 granted the status of candidate country to

    Turkey. Accession negotiations with Turkey were opened in October 2005.

    The Association Agreement between Turkey and the then EEC was signed in 1963 and

    entered in force in December 1964. Turkey and the EU formed a customs union in 1995.

    1 The rapporteur for Turkey is Mrs. Oomen-Ruijten.

    2 Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2010). COM (2010) 660 of 09.11.2010

    EN EN

    1.3. Relations between the EU and Turkey

    Accession negotiations with Turkey continued. During the preparatory analytical phase the

    level of preparedness to start negotiations on individual chapters has been assessed on the

    basis of screening reports. Of a total of 33 screening reports, one has still to be delivered by

    the Commission to the Council whilst nine are being discussed in the Council.

    So far, negotiations have been opened on thirteen chapters (Science and research, Enterprise

    and industry, Statistics, Financial Control, Trans-European Networks, Consumer and health

    protection, Intellectual property law, Company law, Information society and media, Free

    movement of capital, Taxation, Environment and Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary

    policy) one of which (Science and research) was provisionally closed. The December 2006

    Council decision3 remains in force.

    The enhanced political dialogue between the EU and Turkey has continued. Political dialogue

    meetings were held at ministerial level on 26 November 2009 and 13 July 2010. There was

    one political dialogue meeting at political director level on 10 February 2010. These meetings

    focused on the main challenges faced by Turkey in terms of the Copenhagen political criteria

    and reviewed progress being made towards fulfilment of Accession Partnership priorities.

    Foreign policy issues related to regional areas of common interest to the EU and Turkey, such

    as Iraq, Iran, the Middle East and the Caucasus, were also regularly discussed. Economic

    dialogue took place in a bilateral meeting with the Commission and Turkish senior officials in

    February 2010. In addition, the multilateral economic dialogue between the Commission, EU

    Member States and Candidate Countries in the context of the pre-accession fiscal surveillance

    continued, including a meeting at Ministerial level in May in Brussels. Moreover, a number of

    high-level visits from Turkey to the European institutions took place during the reporting

    period.

    The EU-Turkey Customs Union continues to contribute to the enhancement of EU-Turkey

    bilateral trade, which amounted to €80 billion in 2009. Turkey is the EU’s seventh biggest

    trading partner while the EU is the biggest trade partner of Turkey. Almost half of Turkey’s

    total trade is with the EU while more than two thirds of FDI in Turkey come from the EU.

    However, Turkey maintained and introduced legislation and restrictions that are in violation

    of its commitments under the Customs Union. A number of Turkey’s commitments on

    removing technical barriers to trade such as conformity assessments checks, import and

    export licensing requirements, restrictions on import of goods from third countries in free

    circulation in the EU, State aid, enforcement of intellectual property rights, requirements for

    the registration of new pharmaceutical products and tax discriminatory treatment remain

    unfulfilled. No progress can be reported concerning Turkey’s longstanding ban on imports of

    live bovine animals, beef meat and other animal products. Turkey needs to fully implement

    the Customs Union and to remove a large number of obstacles affecting EU products that are

    in free circulation. The EU urged Turkey to remove all remaining restrictions on the free

    movement of goods, including restrictions on means of transport regarding Cyprus, and to

    fully implement the Customs Union.

    The EU provides guidance to the authorities on reform priorities through the Accession

    Partnership, adopted in February 2008. Progress on these reform priorities is encouraged and

    3 The decision sets out that negotiations will not be opened on eight chapters relevant to Turkey’s

    restrictions regarding the Republic of Cyprus and no chapter will be provisionally closed until the

    Commission confirms that Turkey has fully implemented the Additional Protocol to the Association

    Agreement.

    EN EN

    monitored through the bodies set up under the Association Agreement. The Association

    Committee met on 27 March 2010, the Association Council on 19 May 2010. Eight sector

    sub-committees have been held since November 2009.

    As regards financial assistance, some €654 million have been earmarked for Turkey from the

    Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) in 2010. The revised Multi-Annual Indicative

    Planning Document 2011-2013, which provides the strategic multi-annual framework for all

    programmes at national level (covering all five IPA components), has been drafted based on

    input from the Turkish institutions and will be presented to the IPA Management Committee

    in the beginning of 2011. Support will focus on priority areas such as, fundamental rights and

    the rule of law, public administration reform, competitiveness, environment, transport,

    energy, social development and agriculture and rural development. In addition, Turkey is

    benefiting from support for cross-border cooperation and a series of regional and horizontal

    programmes under IPA.

    EU financial support has been provided to civil society development under the Civil Society

    Facility, in particular to enhance civil society organisationsエ capacities. Moreover, technical

    assistance was provided to the Turkish administration promoting good practices on support of

    active citizenship. In 2010 funding was also provided to encourage a civil society dialogue

    between Turkey and the EU in the areas of political criteria and media. In addition, Turkey’s

    participation in EU programmes and agencies has been co-financed and projects in areas such

    as media, youth, academic institutions, local authorities, cultural organisations/centres and

    civil society organisations have been supported.

    Assistance under IPA is implemented through decentralised management, meaning that

    assistance is managed by the Turkish authorities as a result of an accreditation process carried

    out by the Commission that was completed for IPA components I-IV in 2009. In 2010 the

    main focus has been to start implementation under these components. Turkey needs to

    strengthen its capacity to absorb funds, achieve results and implement in a timely manner

    components I-IV. Moreover, preparations for the conferral of management responsibility

    under the rural development component (V) need to be completed. The supervision by the

    National Authorising Officer needs to address system weaknesses, including monitoring and

    control, and further improve the quality and efficiency of the project and programme cycles.

    2. POLITICAL CRITERIA

    This section examines progress made by Turkey towards meeting the Copenhagen political

    criteria, which require stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human

    rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It also monitors compliance with

    international obligations, regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations with

    enlargement countries and Member States.

    2.1. Democracy and the rule of law

    The domestic political agenda has been dominated by the constitutional reform package, the

    government’s democratic opening to address notably the Kurdish issue and the widening

    investigations into alleged coup plans. A confrontational political climate prevailed, marked

    by lack of dialogue and spirit of compromise between the main political parties and the

    government and strained relations between key political institutions.

    EN EN

    Further judicial investigations were opened into alleged coup plans prepared by military

    officers. In July, a criminal court in Istanbul accepted the indictment against 196 suspects

    including 19 retired and 28 serving generals and admirals for establishing a structure outside

    the military hierarchy and attempting to overthrow the government and constitutional order.

    The coup plan, referred to as ‘Sledgehammer’, was allegedly prepared in 2003 under the

    auspices of the First Army. Pending the start of the trial on 16 December 2010 all defendants

    are free.

    The trial against the alleged criminal network Ergenekon is continuing and investigations

    have been widened. A total of 270 people, including 116 military officers and 6 journalists,

    were charged with trying to overthrow the government and to instigate armed riots under

    seven separate indictments. The case concerning the 2006 attack on the Council of State,

    which left a senior judge dead, was merged with the Ergenekon case. A coup plan, referred to

    as the ‘cage plan’, dated March 2009, was seized by investigators from Ergenekon suspects.

    The ‘cage plan’ allegedly aimed at destabilising the country by killing members of non-

    Muslim minorities, Former commanders of the air force, navy and army testified in the case

    and, for the first time, a full general on active duty, the commander of the Third Army, was

    summoned to testify as a member of the Ergenekon network in Erzincan. The investigation

    into the coup plan, referred to as the ‘action plan against reactionarism’ begun in 2009

    continued.

    The time lapse between arrests and the presentation of indictments to the court in these

    investigations fuelled concerns about effective judicial guarantees for all suspects. The length

    of pre-trial detention raises concern.

    In December, the Constitutional Court (CC) ruled unanimously to dissolve the Democratic

    Society Party (DTP) and to ban 37 members from party politics for five years, including two

    Members of Parliament who thereby lost their parliamentary seats. The ruling was a serious

    setback to the government’s efforts at democratic opening. Under Articles 68 and 69 of the

    Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Law on political parties, the party was

    sentenced as a ‘focus of activities against the indivisible integrity of the State’. Former DTP

    Members of Parliament joined the new Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and created a new

    parliamentary group under the BDP.

    Overall, the investigation into the alleged criminal network Ergenekon and the probe into

    several other coup plans remain an opportunity for Turkey to strengthen confidence in the

    proper functioning of its democratic institutions and the rule of law. However, there are

    concerns as regards judicial guarantees for all suspects. Turkey still needs to align its

    legislation as regards procedure and grounds for closure of political parties with European

    standards.

    Constitution

    The government put forward a number of amendments to the Constitution which were

    adopted by parliament in May and approved in a referendum in September with a majority of

    58% of the votes and high voter turnout (73%). The key provisions of the package change the

    composition of the Constitutional Court and of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors,

    restrict the authority of military courts, allow appeals against expulsion decisions by the

    Supreme Military Council to be brought before civilian courts, establish a constitutional base

    for the Ombudsman service, introduce the right to collective bargaining for public servants

    and allow positive discrimination measures in favour of women, children and the elderly.

    EN EN

    The government established an action plan on legislation necessary for the implementation of

    the constitutional amendments, and indicated its intention to consult stakeholders.

    Consultations are also ongoing with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe for

    those constitutional amendments regarding the judiciary.

    However, one of the key provisions originally included in the package, which would have

    made closure of political parties more difficult, was dropped when it failed to secure sufficient

    votes in parliament.

    The drafting and adoption of the constitutional reforms was not preceded by a consultation

    process involving political parties and civil society.

    The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) lodged a petition before the

    Constitutional Court to annul the entire package. The Court ruled against the annulment

    request but amended two provisions relating to the process for appointing members of the

    Constitutional Court and of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors.

    Overall, the constitutional amendments are a step in the right direction. They address a

    number of priorities of the Accession Partnership in the area of the judiciary, fundamental

    rights and public administration. However, broad public consultation involving all political

    parties and civil society, with their full engagement, is needed to strengthen support for

    constitutional reform. The implementation of the amended constitutional provisions through

    legislation, in line with European standards, is key.

    Parliament

    The confrontational political climate between the main political parties continued to slow

    down work on political reforms. The main opposition CHP party elected a new party leader in

    May. Apart from the Law amending the Constitution, parliament passed a limited number of

    laws covering areas related to the Copenhagen political criteria.

    In October, an amendment to the Law on the election of parliamentarians was adopted.

    Accordingly, parliamentary elections will be held every four years instead of every five, in

    line with an amendment to the Constitution adopted earlier in the year.

    In March, the Law on elections and electoral rolls was amended to allow use of languages

    other than Turkish for oral and written publicity material during election campaigns. Further

    changes to the law aimed at ensuring transparency concerning the income and expenses of

    political parties and candidates during campaigns.

    No changes were made to the electoral system. The 10% of the national vote required for

    representation in parliament, which is the highest threshold in any Council of Europe member

    state, remains.

    The scope of parliamentary immunities continues to raise concerns. It is too wide in cases of

    corruption but at the same time it does not adequately protect the expression of non-violent

    opinions. The majority of the DTP/BDP Members of Parliament have been taken to court,

    based on an interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution in favour of restriction of

    immunities when crimes against the ‘integrity of the State’ are concerned (see the chapter on

    Anti-corruption policy).

    EN EN

    No progress has been made on improving parliament’s rules of procedure. Adoption of the

    draft finalised in February 2009 by the Consensus Committee on Rules of Procedure is still

    pending, due to lack of consensus between the political parties.

    Concerns about the administrative capacity of Turkey’s parliament persist in several fields,

    including executive-legislative relations and parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. The

    Turkish Grand National Assembly plays a limited role in the formulation and implementation

    of Turkey’s accession strategy.

    President

    The President continued to play an active conciliatory role promoting dialogue between the

    main political parties and endeavouring to ensure the sound operation of state bodies.

    However, there were concerns expressed concerning the President’s appointments to certain

    key State institutions, in particular the judiciary and universities. The President stated his

    commitment to addressing the Kurdish issues and kept up his active role in foreign policy.

    Government

    In January, a new strategy for Turkey’s accession to the EU was prepared with the aim of

    speeding up the 3accession negotiations and increasing public awareness and support for

    accession. In this context, on 15 March the Turkish Council of Ministers adopted the 2010-

    2011 action plan outlining legislation to be enacted and studies to be carried out on each

    chapter of the negotiations.

    In February, the Reform Monitoring Group (RMG) – made up of the Minister of Foreign

    Affairs, the State Minister for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator and the Ministers of Justice

    and of the Interior – met under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister for the first time since

    the group was established in 2003, stating the government’s commitment to the EU accession

    process. The RMG continued to meet regularly in different parts of the country underlining

    the determination of the government to involve the people more closely in the accession

    process.

    Some of the RMG’s recommendations have been put into practice. A sub-committee on

    political affairs, made up of high-level civil servants, has been established to speed up work

    on political reforms. A deputy governor in each province has been designated as the EU

    contact point. Key reforms relevant to the accession process were included in the package of

    amendments to the Constitution.

    The State Minister for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator further streamlined inter-ministerial

    coordination for the accession negotiations. The minister frequently met civil society

    stakeholders to promote their participation in the accession process.

    However, further changes to the legislation, in particular as regards protection of fundamental

    rights, is necessary. The special legislative procedure for EU reforms in parliament has not

    been adopted, in order to expedite its work related to Turkey’s accession.

    Regarding local government, a delegation from the Council of Europe Congress of Local

    Authorities visited Turkey in May to follow up on recommendations made in 2007.

    Transparency, accountability and participatory mechanisms need to be strengthened,

    especially in local government to which further resources and responsibilities have been

    EN 10 EN

    transferred. Strategic plans, performance measures, establishing financial control systems,

    project management, crisis management, environmental management and information

    technology management remain to be established at local level.

    Overall, after a significant slowdown in the reform agenda over the last few years, the

    government put forward a number of key constitutional reforms and specific measures, albeit

    of limited scope. The strained relations between key state bodies are continuing to have a

    negative impact on the smooth functioning of political institutions.

    Public administration

    An inventory of public services was carried out by the government. Specific public service

    standards for procedures, quality, eligibility criteria and complaints were developed. Work on

    providing basic public services on-line (e-government) has continued with a view to

    improving their quality and to increasing transparency and accountability.

    The constitutional reform provides the basis for establishment of an Ombudsman institution.

    The amendments to the Constitution introduced protection of personal data and access to

    information as constitutional rights.

    However, no progress has been made on reforming the civil service system, in particular to

    reduce red tape, to develop regulatory impact assessments (RIA) and to ensure transparency

    and merit-based advancement and appointments, particularly to high-level positions. Also,

    there is a lack of consultation by civil service of relevant stakeholders in the preparation of

    policies and legislation. Enforcement of common standards and uniform implementation of

    the rules across the civil service remain to be achieved.

    With regard to implementation of the public financial management and control (PFMC) law,

    an effective internal audit system, in the form of autonomous units within all State

    institutions, is not yet operational.

    Clear rules for establishing a business company or a corporation to deliver public services by

    municipalities remain to be introduced. Such rules will reduce opportunities for partisan

    employment and public funding without effective control.

    Overall, some progress has been made, in particular towards establishing an Ombudsman

    institution, protection of personal data and access to information. Further efforts are needed,

    in particular on reforming the civil service and implementing the PFMC law. Increased

    political support to the public administration reform is necessary.

    Civilian oversight of security forces

    In February, the government annulled the secret protocol on Security, Public Order and

    Assistance Units (commonly called EMASYA), which allowed military operations to be

    carried out without the consent of civilian authorities. Implementation of the annulment

    decision remains to be completed.

    In February, parliament adopted a law establishing an Under-secretariat for Public Order and

    Security under the Ministry of the Interior to develop policies on counter-terrorism and to

    serve as secretariat for the Counter-Terrorism Coordination Board. The law also established

    EN 11 EN

    an Intelligence Assessment Centre to strengthen intelligence-sharing between security

    institutions.

    The constitutional reform limits the jurisdiction of military courts to ‘military service and

    military duties’. Under the new system, crimes against state security, the constitutional order

    and the functioning of this order will be dealt with by civilian courts.

    The amendments to the Constitution opened dismissals of military staff by the Supreme

    Military Council to judicial review. The constitutional provision providing immunity for the

    perpetrators of the 1980 coup d’騁at was deleted from the Constitution. In addition, the Chief

    of General Staff and the commanders of the army, air force, navy and gendarmerie will be

    tried before a high tribunal for any offences committed in the course of their official duties.

    Progress has been made as regards internal audits, introduced by the public financial

    management and control law, in security institutions following the adoption of a regulation on

    the internal audit and management of movable properties of the armed forces, the national

    intelligence agency and the national policy, in July. The Court of Auditors has launched the

    planning phase for auditing the extra-budgetary Defence Industry Support Fund (SSDF).

    The case against two non-commissioned officers and an informant from the terrorist group

    PKK concerning the bombing of a bookstore in Semdinli4 is still pending. The case is with a

    criminal court in Hakkari further to the decision of the Van military court that the defendants

    should be charged for homicide and that there is no evidence to prove that they committed the

    offence of “Impairing the unity of the state” regulated in article 302 of the Turkish criminal

    code. The military court set the accused free pending trial.

    Implementation of the regulation on the powers of the police and the gendarmerie in urban

    and rural areas has continued. Residential areas in 31 towns with a combined population of

    about one million civilians were transferred from the Gendarmerie to the police, which is

    under civilian control. However, there has been no progress on civilian control over the

    gendarmerie’s law enforcement activities.

    The trial of a serving gendarmerie colonel who was allegedly involved in extra-judicial

    killings in the south-east in the 1990s continued. The proper conduct of this trial is critical for

    the fight against impunity.

    There is a decrease in the number of incidents where the armed forces exerted formal and

    informal influence on political issues beyond their remit. Nonetheless, on some occasions, the

    Chief of General Staff made comments about ongoing court cases and investigations. A

    number of criminal complaints were lodged by citizens and NGOs about such statements.

    However, there was no judicial follow-up. The selective accreditation by the military of

    certain media has continued.

    No change has been made to the Turkish Armed Forces Internal Service Law, which defines

    the duties of the military and contains an article leaving the military wide room for manoeuvre

    to intervene into politics. The Law on the National Security Council provides a broad

    definition of ‘security’, which, depending on interpretation, could cover almost any policy

    field.

    4 The defendants are accused of the November 2005 bombing that killed one person and injured others in

    the town of Semdinli in Southeast Turkey.

    EN 12 EN

    No progress has been made concerning parliamentary oversight of the defence budget or on

    audit of the properties of the armed forces by the Court of Auditors. The Law on the Court of

    Auditors was adopted by the Planning and Budget Committee in May and is awaiting

    approval by the plenary.

    Overall, progress has been made on civilian oversight of security forces. The jurisdiction of

    military courts was limited, the decisions of the Supreme Military Council were opened to

    judicial review and arrangements were made for high-ranking officers to be tried by civilian

    courts. However, senior members of the armed forces have made a number of statements

    going beyond their remit, in particular on judicial issues. No progress was made on

    parliamentary oversight over extra-budgetary military funds.

    Judicial system

    Progress has been made on reforming the judiciary. Implementation of the 2009 judicial

    reform strategy has continued. Some of the central pillars of the strategy were put in place by

    the amendments to the Constitution.

    As regards the independence of the judiciary, the constitutional amendments increased the

    number of full members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors from seven to twentytwo.

    In addition to representatives of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State, the new

    members include representatives of first instance judges, the Justice Academy, law faculties

    and lawyers. This new membership lays the foundation for making the High Council

    representative of the judiciary as a whole.

    The amendments to the Constitution open to judicial review decisions by the High Council

    dismissing members of the judiciary from the profession. This is a move in the direction of

    establishing an effective remedy against decisions by the High Council. A Secretariat-General

    established under the High Council provides it with professional and secretarial support.

    Previously, professional and secretarial support for the High Council was provided by the

    Ministry of Justice. The High Council appoints judges and prosecutors to this Secretariat.

    This should reduce the opportunities for the executive to interfere with administration of the

    Council.

    Judicial inspectors responsible for evaluating the performance of judges and prosecutors

    henceforth will report to the High Council and no longer to the Ministry of Justice, thus

    giving the High Council a basis for carrying out its work without the risk of political

    interference. However, the minister is still President of the High Council and the investigative

    authority of the High Council is subject to his approval5.

    The Semdinli case is still pending. (See the chapter on Civilian oversight of security forces)

    The dismissal of the civilian prosecutor previously in charge of the case, together with the

    handling of the case to date, has raised questions about the independence of the High

    Council6.

    5 The draft Law on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors proposed by the Ministry of Justice

    provides that these decisions of the Minister are subject to judicial review.

    6 The civilian prosecutor in this case published the indictment in 2006. It included accusations against

    high-ranking military commanders. The General Staff criticised the indictment and urged those bearing

    constitutional responsibility to take action. The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors took the

    dismissal decision in April 2006.

    EN 13 EN

    With regard to impartiality, constitutional provisions allowing military courts to try civilians

    have been taken out of the Constitution and new provisions explicitly prohibit such trials.

    Cases related to offences against the security of the state, the constitutional order and the

    functioning of this order are to be tried before civilian courts. This followed the annulment by

    the Constitutional Court, in January 2010, of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code

    allowing civilian courts to try members of the armed forces in cases of organised crime and

    crimes against the state, on the basis that these conflicted with the constitutional provisions at

    the time. The new provisions for trial of such cases by civilian courts are positive.

    Since the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution, the Constitutional Court will be

    made up of seventeen members. Ten will be nominated by the President amongst the

    candidates nominated by the Court of Cassation, the Council of State, the Military Supreme

    Administrative Court, the Military Court of Cassation and the High Education Board, and

    four will be elected directly by the President from among senior administrators, lawyers and

    rapporteur judges of the Constitutional Court. The Parliament elects three members of the

    Constitutional Court from amongst the candidates proposed by the Court of Auditors and the

    Bar Associations. There are three voting rounds in Parliament. In the third voting round the

    candidates are elected by simple majority. No alternate members are envisaged. The

    involvement of the Turkish parliament in the election of Constitutional Court judges brings

    Turkish practice closer to that of EU Member States. However, two of the judges are still

    military judges. As constitutional jurisprudence in a democratic system is a civilian matter,

    the presence of military judges is questionable. In addition, the amended Constitution

    provides that judges should be at least forty-five years of age when elected for a nonrenewable

    term of twelve years. This implies that military judges might return to the military

    justice system when their term in the Constitutional Court expires, which could raise

    questions about their impartiality as Constitutional Court judges.

    Senior members of the judiciary and of the military have made statements that could put the

    impartiality of the judiciary at risk in important cases.

    With regard to the efficiency of the judiciary, use of information technology in the judicial

    system has accelerated judicial procedures and facilitated third party access to judicial

    proceedings. The number of judicial staff continued to increase. On 20 September 2010 there

    were a total of 11,394 judges and prosecutors (11,121 judges and prosecutors on 1 May

    2009). Progress has been made as regards juvenile justice. (See the chapter on Children’s

    rights)

    However, the overall number of vacancies for judges and prosecutors remains significant at

    3,299 on 20 September 2010 (3,875 on 1 May 2009). The regional courts of appeal are not

    operational yet. By law, they should have been in operation by June 2007.

    The regional courts of appeal have not been established yet. By law, they should have been in

    operation by June 2007.

    The arrest of the Chief Public Prosecutor of Erzincan on the grounds of involvement in

    alleged organised crime led the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors to revoke the powers

    of the specially authorised public prosecutor who ordered the arrest. Senior members of the

    judiciary made public statements in support of this decision by the High Council. This

    situation created tensions, both within the judiciary and between the High Council and the

    ministry, and raised questions about the ability of the judiciary to conduct a fair trial.

    EN 14 EN

    Investigations in some high-profile cases continued to raise concerns. This points to the need

    to improve the work of the police and the gendarmerie but, also, the working relationship

    between the police and the gendarmerie on the one hand and the judiciary on the other. The

    ECtHR in its Chamber judgement of 14 September 2010 on the case of Dink v. Turkey7

    considered that the Turkish authorities had not done everything that could reasonably have

    been expected of them to prevent Mr Dink’s assassination and that no effective investigation

    had been carried out into the failures which occurred in protecting the life of Mr Dink. There

    had therefore been a violation of Article 2 (right to life). In addition, the Court found a

    violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression), and 13 (right to an effective remedy) in

    conjunction with Article 2. Turkey indicated that it will not appeal the Chamber’s judgement.

    There has been no progress on introduction of a mediation system into civil justice.

    Reconciliation, introduced into the criminal justice system in 2005, is not used effectively.

    Provision of legal aid is inadequate in terms of either its coverage or the quality of services

    provided. The implementation of pre-trial detention is not limited to circumstances where it is

    strictly necessary in the public interest. This adds to the overcrowding in prisons, where more

    than half of the inmates await trial. Judges do not make effective use of the probation system.

    There are concerns about the functioning of the Forensic Medicine Institute. In a number of

    cases the institute gave conflicting reports on the same case at different times. The backlog of

    the institute leads to delays in judicial proceedings.

    A Council of State judgment in 2009 pointed to the overlapping responsibilities for provision

    of in-service training between the Training Department of the Ministry of Justice and the

    Turkish Justice Academy. Pre-service and in-service training both fall under the responsibility

    of the Justice Academy.

    Overall, there has been progress in the area of the judiciary. The adoption of the amendments

    to the Constitution on the composition of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors as well

    as the limitation of the authority of military courts is a positive step. However, the Minister of

    Justice still chairs the High Council and has the last word on investigations. Attention needs

    to be paid to establishing an effective dialogue with all stakeholders and to implementing

    these reforms in accordance with European standards and in an open, transparent and

    inclusive way.

    Anti-corruption policy

    The government adopted a 2010-2014 strategy for enhancing transparency and strengthening

    the fight against corruption in February 2010. A ministerial committee8 was established in

    December 2009 together with an executive board made up of representatives of public

    institutions, labour unions and the Turkish Union of Chambers and Stock Exchanges (TOBB)

    to form further anti-corruption strategies and to direct and monitor their implementation.

    The strategy aims at developing preventive and repressive measures against corruption and

    improving public governance by introducing more transparency, accountability and reliability

    in the public administration.

    An action plan setting the timetables for adoption and implementation of each measure was

    approved by the ministerial committee in April 2010. Effective implementation could

    7 Applications no. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09.

    8 The ministerial committee consists of the Deputy Prime Minister and four ministers (Ministry of

    Justice, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Labour and Social Security).

    EN 15 EN

    contribute to changing behaviour of public administration, so that it promotes and protects

    integrity and reduces opportunities for corrupt practices. However, participation by civil

    society and its role on the executive board and in implementation of the strategy need to be

    strengthened.

    By June 2010, Turkey had implemented 15 of the 21 recommendations in the 2005 evaluation

    reports by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). The GRECO report suggests

    further efforts, in particular to broaden the representation of the anti-corruption oversight

    body, to enhance the independence of the judiciary and, to reform the system of immunities

    and to finally establish the Ombudsman institution. The constitutional amendments provide

    the basis for progress on enhancing the independence of the judiciary and an Ombudsman

    institution.

    In December 2009, the Prime Ministerial Inspection Board was appointed as the counterpart

    of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and was given the task of Anti-Fraud

    Coordination Structure (AFCOS) responsible for investigation of irregularities in the context

    of financial cooperation between the EU and Turkey. (See Chapter 32 – Financial control)

    In February 2010, the Constitutional Court annulled the provisions of the Law on the Council

    of Ethics regarding publication of the names of civil servants who violate the code of ethics,

    on the grounds that publishing names without a judicial decision would jeopardise the

    presumption of innocence. Ethics training has continued and around 7,000 civil servants

    working for central and local governments have been trained between October 2009 and

    September 2010. In September, the Government adopted a regulation on the code of ethics

    with which investigators and auditors should comply while doing their jobs. However, no

    progress has been made on extending ethics rules to academics, military personnel and the

    judiciary.

    No progress has been made on limiting the immunities of Members of Parliament concerning

    corruption-related offences.

    Further measures are needed to complete the existing legislation and ensure its effective

    implementation to increase transparency on the financing of political parties and election

    campaigns. More resources are also required in order to better detect illegal practice, in

    particular to extend the current monitoring mechanism to election campaign funding of parties

    and candidates.

    For the first time, a mayor of a metropolitan municipality (Adana) was suspended from

    mayoral duties on March 2010 by the Ministry of Interior because of serious corruption

    allegations. Administrative and judicial investigations are continuing.

    The investigation begun in 2009 into the charity association Deniz Feneri concerning a fraud

    case in Germany is continuing. The police made searches on the premises of the association

    and at the homes of the suspects. However, no indictment has been submitted to court yet.

    The draft law on the Turkish Court of Auditors, which envisages strengthening the Court and

    extending its mandate, was adopted by the Planning and Budget Committee of the Parliament

    in May and is awaiting approval by the plenary. (See Chapter 23 – Judiciary and fundamental

    rights)

    EN 16 EN

    Overall, progress has been made as regards the development of a comprehensive anticorruption

    strategy and action plan and of a body to oversee and monitor its implementation,

    thus addressing Accession Partnership priorities. However, effective implementation of the

    strategy is necessary to reduce corruption which remains prevalent in many areas. Turkey

    needs to develop a track record of investigations, indictments, and convictions.

    2.2. Human rights and the protection of minorities

    Observance of international human rights law

    As for ratification of human rights instruments, ratification of the Optional Protocol to the

    UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) is still pending before parliament. Turkey has not

    ratified three additional Protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)9.

    The number of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finding that Turkey

    has violated the ECHR continued to increase. During the reporting period the court delivered

    a total of 553 judgements finding that Turkey had violated the ECHR. The number of new

    applications to the ECtHR went up for the fourth consecutive year. Since October 2009, a

    total of 5,728 new applications were made to the ECtHR. The majority of them concern the

    right to a fair trial and protection of property rights. As of September 2010, 16,093 cases were

    pending before the ECtHR regarding Turkey. The amendment to the Constitution introducing

    the right to submit individual applications to the Constitutional Court is an important step to

    reduce the number of applications to the ECtHR.

    Turkey has abided by the majority of ECtHR rulings, including payment of compensation

    totalling €6.1 million in 2009. Amendments to the Law on enforcement of judgments address

    shortcomings in the judicial process that were identified in several ECtHR rulings against

    Turkey. However, some rulings have not been followed up by Turkey for several years10. The

    government’s announcement that it would address these issues was not followed by action.

    In the Cyprus v. Turkey case, the issue of missing persons and restrictions on the property

    rights of Greek Cypriots living permanently in the northern part of Cyprus remains pending.

    At a meeting in September 2010, the Committee of Ministers decided to postpone

    examination of these issues until December 2010. In its Grand Chamber Decision of 5 March

    2010 on the Demopoulos v. Turkey case the ECtHR concluded that, for the purposes of the

    ECHR, remedies available may be regarded as effective and accessible domestic remedies

    which have to be exhausted before applications before the ECtHR can be found admissible.

    However, the court stressed that this decision was not to be interpreted as requiring applicants

    to make use of the Immovable Property Commission procedure. Applicants could choose not

    to do so and await a political solution. Since March the number of applications to the

    Immovable Property Commission has increased substantially.

    Regarding promotion and enforcement of human rights, the government plans the

    establishment of several human rights institutions. In particular, the draft law on the

    establishment of the Turkish Independent Human Rights Institution was submitted to

    9 Protocols 4, 7 and 12.

    10 The non-implementation of the Hulki G・eş, Gmen and Slemez judgments has resulted in

    deprivation of liberty for the defendants for several years without due process of law. A legislative

    amendment is required to remedy this situation. Furthermore, Turkey has not adopted legal measures to

    prevent repetitive prosecution and conviction of conscientious objectors. Other issues awaiting

    legislative measures by Turkey concern control of the activities of security forces, effective remedies

    against abuse, restrictions on freedom of expression and excessive length of pre-trial detention.

    EN 17 EN

    parliament in February 2010. Opinions from NGOs were discussed by the relevant

    parliamentary sub-committee. The draft law before parliament needs to be amended to bring it

    into line with the UN framework, in particular as regards the independence and functional

    autonomy of this new institution. It is important to conduct this process in close consultation

    with NGOs.

    The constitutional reform provides the basis for establishment of an Ombudsman institution.

    Human rights training for public officials, judges, public prosecutors and police officers

    continued. In-service and on-the-job training for the gendarmerie includes training on human

    rights together with specialist training on techniques for reviewing allegations of human rights

    violations.

    The Human Rights Investigation Committee of the Parliament published 13 reports. However,

    the Committee has been focussing on policy making and the legislative process.

    Human rights defenders have continued to face criminal proceedings. Investigations carried

    out as part of the fight against terrorism have raised concerns following the arrests of trade

    union and human rights activists. The wide definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terror Law

    remains a cause for concern (See the chapter on the Situation in the south-east).

    Human rights institutions lack resources, independence and impact.

    Overall, some progress was made on observance of international human rights law. However,

    a number of reforms have been outstanding for several years. Legislation on human rights’

    institutions needs to be brought fully in line with UN principles.

    Civil and political rights

    The government pursued its efforts to ensure compliance with legal safeguards to prevent

    torture and ill-treatment. This policy has continued to produce positive results. Training for

    health personnel, judges and prosecutors on effective investigation and documentation of

    torture and ill-treatment cases continued with a view to implementation of the Istanbul

    Protocol11 in Turkey.

    The draft Law on the Establishment of a Monitoring Commission on Security Forces was

    submitted to the Parliament in October. The draft foresees the establishment of a Supervisory

    Commission for the registration and monitoring of disciplinary procedures and measures

    against law enforcement officers.

    However, disproportionate use of force by law enforcement bodies continued. Reports to

    NGOs of disproportionate use of firearms by security forces resulting in death have increased.

    Ratification of OPCAT has been pending since 2005. (See the chapter on Observance of

    international human rights law)

    Law enforcement bodies frequently launch cases against persons who allege torture or illtreatment.

    Such legal proceedings may deter complaints. In many instances these cases are

    given priority by Turkish courts.

    11 Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel,

    inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, submitted to the United Nations Commissioner for

    Human Rights, 9 August 1999.

    EN 18 EN

    No forensic doctors are recognised by courts, apart from the Forensic Medicine Council,

    which is under the Ministry of Justice. Law enforcement officers are sometimes present

    during medical examination of prisoners.

    As regards the fight against impunity, the case concerning the death in detention of Engin…

    Read full report