Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92
December 2006
Artyomov v. Russia (dec.) - 17582/05
Decision 7.12.2006 [Section I]
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Refusal to register as a political party an association openly declaring affiliation with a certain ethnic group:inadmissible
The applicant is the leader of the public movement “Russian All-Nation Union”. Three years after its registration as a public association, members thereof decided to re-organise the movement into a political party bearing the same name. The application for the party's registration was refused as the Political Parties Act prohibits the establishment of political parties based, in particular, on religious or ethnic affiliation. Taking into account the name of the party, domestic courts considered that it was founded on the basis of ethnic affiliation, in breach of the aforementioned Act, even though the party's articles of association and programme did not indicate protection of the interests of the Russians as its main objective. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the Political Parties Act. For the Russian Constitutional Court, the establishment of parties based on ethnic or religious affiliation would imperil the peaceful co-existence of nations and religions in the Russian Federation and would undermine the principles of a secular state and equality before the law.
Inadmissible: The impugned decision directly affected the political party into which the public movement of the same name had decided to re-organise itself, rather than the applicant himself as an individual. The Court nevertheless assumed that the refusal to register the political party amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of association.
The applicant did not contest that the name of his political party advocated the promotion of the interests of a particular ethnic group, the Russians.
The Russian Constitutional Court noted the special role of Russian political parties as the only actors in the political process capable of nominating candidates for election at all levels. Having regard to the importance of that role, the legislature banned discrimination in access to the membership of political parties, including, specifically, discrimination on the ground of race, religion and ethnic origin. When considering the legal consequences of registering political parties openly declaring their affiliation with a certain ethnic group or religion, the Constitutional Court evidently proceeded from the assumption that the establishment of such parties would be incompatible with the non-discrimination clause of the Political Parties Act. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable that a party standing for the furtherance of the interests of one ethnic group or religious denomination would be able to ensure the fair and proper representation of members of other ethnic groups or adherents of other faiths. Thus, the impugned measure, read together with the non-discrimination clause, served to implement the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 19 of the Russian Constitution, as well as to ensure the fair treatment of minorities in the political process. Recalling that discrimination on account of one's ethnic origin or religion is a form of racial discrimination which requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction, the Court accepts that the impugned measure was adopted in pursuance of “pressing social need”.
The legal status or activities of the public movement “Russian All-National Union” have not been affected by the refusal to register that party. It has lawfully existed since 1998 and its activities or membership have not been restricted in any way. The prohibition against explicit ethnic or religious affiliation was of a limited remit: it applied solely to political parties but to no other type of public association. The applicant's ability to lead a public association, even based on ethnic affiliation, has been unhampered. Thus, the applicant's freedom of association was not per se restricted by the State, only its ability to nominate candidates in elections. States have considerable latitude to establish the criteria for participation in elections. The Russian Constitutional Court expounded on the reasons which led it to conclude that in modern-day Russia it would be perilous to foster electoral competition between political parties based on ethnic or religious affiliation. Regard being had to the principle of respect for national specificity in electoral matters, the Court does not find these reasons arbitrary or unreasonable. The interference was therefore proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued: manifestly ill-founded.
See Gorzelik v. Poland, [GC], judgment 17 February 2004, Information Note No 61.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy