Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 101
October 2007
Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece - 35151/05
Judgment 11.10.2007 [Section I]
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Refusal by courts to register an association on the basis of mere suspicion about the founders’ real intentions and future actions: violation
Facts: The applicants and nineteen other members of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace decided to set up a non-profit-making association called the “Evros Prefecture Minority Youth Association”. The association sought, in particular, to harness the intellectual potential of young people belonging to the minority, safeguard and promote the minority’s traditions, develop relations between its members and protect democracy, human rights and friendship, especially between the Greek and Turkish peoples. The Court of First Instance rejected an application to have the association registered, pointing out that the Treaty of Lausanne recognised only a Muslim, and not a Turkish, minority in Western Thrace. It found that the title of the association was confusing, creating the impression that nationals of a foreign country, and in particular Turkish nationals, were permanently resident in Greece and that the association they had set up was not aimed at serving the interests of the Muslim minority in Evros. The applicants challenged the decision, but the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court’s findings and upheld its decision. The applicants then appealed on points of law and the Court of Cassation quashed the impugned judgment and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal. There, the appeal was rejected, the court considering that the name of the association, particularly the phrase “Minority Youth”, was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal but, on the contrary, created confusion and doubt as to whether the association represented a religious (Muslim) minority or an ethnic (Turkish) minority – the latter being against the law in Greece. The Court of Cassation rejected a new appeal lodged by the applicants.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The proceedings had lasted more than ten years, at three levels of jurisdiction. The case had certainly been marked by a degree of complexity. However, the interested parties had shown no particular diligence in conducting the proceedings, but had rather delayed them. The judicial authorities could not be accused of unjustified delays or periods of inactivity.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 11 – The courts’ refusal to register the applicants’ association amounted to interference by the authorities in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. The interference was prescribed by a law which allowed the courts to refuse an application to register an association if they found that the validity of its articles of association was open to question. Moreover, the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder. As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society to achieve the legitimate aim pursued, the refusal to register the association had been motivated mainly by a concern to put a stop to the applicants' alleged intention to spread the idea that there was an ethnic minority living in Greece whose rights were not fully respected. The disputed measure had been based on a mere suspicion as to the true intentions of the association’s founders and the activities it might have engaged in had it started to function. However, in the instant case it had not been possible to verify their intentions in practice, as the association had never been registered. Furthermore, even assuming that the true aim of the association had indeed been to spread the idea that there was an ethnic minority living in Greece, that alone did not amount to a threat to democratic society, especially considering that there was nothing in the articles of association to suggest that its members advocated the use of violence or antidemocratic or anti-constitutional methods. There was no preventive supervisory system under Greek law covering the establishment of non-profit-making associations. And lastly, had the association been established, the Court of First Instance could always have ordered its dissolution if it were subsequently to pursue an aim other than that specified in its articles of association, or if its functioning proved to be contrary to law, morality or public order. The Court accordingly failed to see what pressing social need there had been to refuse to register the applicants’ association and concluded that the impugned measure had been disproportionate to the aims pursued.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – Finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
© 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