{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018779342723004695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.612403100775194, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Political party closures in European democratic order: comparing the justifications in DTP and Batasuna decisions

ABSTRACT This article investigates the influence of the institutions that aim to foster democracy in Europe, such as the European Union, European Court of Human Rights and Venice Commission on political party closure cases in Europe, through a comparative study on the Democratic Society Party (DTP) decision in Turkey and the Batasuna decision in Spain. Adopting the theory of communicative action, the arguments presented by the judges in the related reasoned decisions are analysed according to three categories: utility; values; and rights. It is argued that the European norms and principles constitute the main strand of justifications; hence, the European institutions have a considerable right-based influence on national courts.