United Macedonian Organization v. Bulgaria
From DADEL
Case Summary
Case of United Macedonian Organization v. Bulgaria
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 59491/00
Judgment of 19 April 2006
The applicants alleged that the courts refused to register the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden (“Ilinden”) because they belonged to a minority. The parties alleged violations of Articles 6, 11, and 14.
Contents |
Facts
In 1990, Ilinden applied for and was denied registration. The courts found that Ilinden’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national and ethnic hatred and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. The organization had previously stated that it would not threaten the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. However, in its appeal to the Supreme Court it stated that “the Macedonian people [would] not accept Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian rule.”
Between 1990-2003, the organization tried to organize several events commemorating historical events. These were banned by authorities on the basis that the organization was not registered. In some cases, the courts refused to examine appeals on the same ground.
Ilinden reapplied for registration on March 16, 1998. On June 2, 1998 an unsigned copy of the minutes of the meeting was submitted, containing names of the eighteen founders. On July 10, 1998, the organization submitted a copy prepared by a lawyer and signed by 15 people was submitted, which had been prepared by a lawyer. This application was rejected by the Blagoevgrad Regional Court, which stated that it was unclear who were the founders and what they had agreed upon as there were two different copies of the minutes and that one was signed by only 15 of the 18 purported founders while the other was unsigned. It also rejected the organization registration request saying that it did not submit signed articles of the association. Furthermore, the court stated that the submitted articles were inadmissible under Bulgarian law. It noted that the organization has a political agenda and therefore cannot be registered as a non-profit organization according to Bulgarian law.
The court stated: “There is no Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. There are no historical, religious, linguistic, or ethnical grounds for such an assertion. [Such an assertion], coupled with the declarations alleging ‘assimilation, discrimination and xenophobia’ in respect of the ‘Macedonians’, is in reality directed against the unity of the nation.”
Ilinden appealed to the Sofia Court of Appeals, stating it did not have a political agenda. At the same time, it submitted fresh documents to solve the technical problems. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the organization was pursuing political aims. These aims included supporting the Macedonian Orthodox Church, holding meetings, marches and demonstrations as well as efforts to influence elections. The court also cited the lack of properly prepared documents.
Ilinden appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation, saying the appellate court had ignored its new documents. The organization stated that it had no intention of becoming involved in religious activities. The court held that the Court of Appeal’s holding was correct.
Ilinden again applied for registration on October 21, 2002. The Blagoevgrad Regional Court refused the application again citing political aims of the group. It stated that “what was sought was the registration of an association whose aims are illegal.” Once again, Ilinden appealed unsuccessfully.
Admissibility
The Application was found admissible.
Merits
The applicants argue that Article 11 was violated in that the refusal of the courts to register Ilinden in 1998-9 was arbitrarily based on a distorted interpretation of the relevant facts, and not grounded in domestic law.
The applicants allege that their right to freedom of association was violated. According to the Convention, freedom of association cannot be subjected to restrictions other than those provided by law for the protection of national security and public safety, for the prevention for disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The applicants argued that all clashes with police were provocative actions of the authorities. They stated they did not have political goals and did not seek the secession of Pirin Macedonia( a part of Southwestern Bulgaria). They stated that it was the policy of the authorities to deny the existence of a Macedonian minority.
The government submitted that the restriction had been justified. As regards lawfulness, the government claimed that its refusal was based on the Bulgarian Constitution of 1991 (Articles 12 § 2 and 44 § 2), the Persons and Family Act of 1949 (sections 134 et seq.) and the Political Parties Act of 1990 (section 13).
The government claimed it was pursuing legitimate aims. These included protecting national security and public safety and preventing disorder and crime. It argued that Ilinden’s goal to continue the national liberation struggle against the alleged Bulgarian state terrorism and genocide posed a serious threat to national security. It said its actions protected the rights and freedom of non-Macedonians in the Pirin region.
The court held that the refusal of the domestic courts to register Ilinden amounts to an interference under article 11. The court recognized that the actions were allowed by law based on the provisions of the Constitution of 1991, the Persons and Family Act of 1949 and several other statutes. The court accepted that the interference was intended to safeguard one or more of the interests cited by the government.
Finally, the court considered whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society.” In general terms, the court stated that States have a right to satisfy themselves that an associations’ aims and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in the legislation, but they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention. The Court referred to the government’s special role in ensuring pluralism. The exceptions set out in Article 11 are to be construed strictly; only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on freedom of association. The Court must consider if the interference was “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”
As applied to this case, the Court assessed the grounds relied on for interference. First it considered the alleged formal deficiencies in Ilinden’s registration documents. The court was not satisfied that the alleged deficiencies were sufficient grounds to deny registration, especially since it seemed many of the deficiencies had been rectified.
Second, the Court considered the purported substantive divergences between Ilinden’s articles of association and the constitution and the laws of Bulgaria. The Court found that allegations that Ilinden would be involved in religious activities were irrelevant because registration of such activities only applies to registered denominations and religious education organizations. The Court was also not convinced that registration could be denied on the basis of the organizations alleged activities in politics. The applicable law only placed restriction on non- profits who carried out activities on ”the premises of enterprises, government agencies and organizations.” While leaving it to the domestic courts to apply domestic law, the Court held that the purported substantive divergences were not a sufficient basis for the impugned interference.
Finally, the Court considered the alleged dangers stemming form Ilinden’s goals and declarations. The Court did not accept that there was justification for suppressing radical ideas simply because they shock the majority or challenge the existing order. The Court also found that accusations of violence were exaggerated. The Court concluded that the refusal to register was disproportionate to the objectives pursued.
The Court found no need to deal with allegations of violations of Article 6 and 14, as it dealt with the same facts and those dealing with Article 11.
Decision
1. Held by six votes to one that there was a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
2. Held unanimously that it is not necessary to rule on the allegations of violations of Article 6 and 14 of the Convention.
3. Held that the respondent State is to pay the applicants 1,900 Euros.
Dissenting Opinion
The dissent indicates that the decision of whether interference is justified should be left to the state. There was evidence of violence and a risk of further violence does not seem unreasonable. Due weight should be given to the local sensitivity to these issues. The decision should be limited to the 1998-99 registration and in this instance, the dissenting judge could not conclude that a violation of Article 11 had occurred