Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 101
October 2007
Bozgan v. Romania - 35097/02
Judgment 11.10.2007 [Section III]
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Refusal to register an association solely on the basis of a suspected anticonstitutional aim that did not appear in its statute: violation
Facts: The applicant filed an application with the District Court to register an association called the “Anti-Mafia National Guard” in the register of associations and foundations. He included copies of the association’s memorandum and articles of association, which stated, among other things, that its aim was to provide guidance for citizens concerning legal forms of self-defence to counter the threat of organised crime, and that the association would identify, through the mass media, persons involved in organised crime and create a corresponding database. The articles of association further specified that the association did not seek to take the place of the State authorities. The court rejected the application, finding that the aims of the association promoted activities which entailed interference with the activities of the State judicial authorities, going as far as to propose to set up parallel structures which would monitor those authorities. An appeal by the applicant against that judgment was dismissed in a final judgment.
Law: The refusal to register the association had interfered with the applicant’s right to freedom of association. The interference had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national and public safety. The association’s application had been refused solely on the basis of its articles of association. The domestic courts had relied on a mere suspicion that the association’s intention was to set up parallel structures to the courts. That decision appeared arbitrary, however, in so far as the articles of association made no mention of any such intention. On the contrary, they stated that the association would abide by the law and not seek to take the place of the State authorities.Prior to applying for registration the association had given the courts no prima facie reason through its activities to believe that it might have anti-constitutional intentions contrary to those announced in its articles of association.In refusing to register it the authorities had prevented the association from being constituted.The law applicable in these matters allowed the courts to order the dissolution of an association if its aim proved to be unlawful or different from that mentioned in its articles of association. Consequently, a measure as radical as refusing to register an association even before it had engaged in any activities appeared to be disproportionate to the aim pursued and, accordingly, unnecessary in a democratic society. The application for registration had been rejected without the applicant having been informed of the alleged irregularities or given a chance to remedy them. Obliging him to start the registration procedure again from scratch was to impose too heavy a burden, especially as the law provided for him to remedy any irregularities as part of the initial application process. The refusal to register the association in the register of associations and foundations could therefore not reasonably be considered to have answered a pressing social need or to have been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – Finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the damage sustained.
© 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