Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)46[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov and Ivanov and others against Bulgaria
(Application No. 44079/98, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006
Application No. 46336/99, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the infringement of the freedom of assembly of organisations which aim to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria” due to prohibitions of their meetings between 1998 and 2003 (violation of Article 11) and the lack of effective remedies to complain against these prohibitions (violation of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing similar violations;
Having noted that two other applications presently pending before the European Court concern allegations relating to bans or to the holding of certain meetings of the applicants initially scheduled between March 2004 and September 2009;
Having considered, without prejudging the judgment the Court could deliver in respect of these applications, that in view of the positive trend observed concerning the holding of the applicants’ meetings in particular since 2008 and the absence of complaints from them as regards 2010, no further individual measure seemed required in these cases;
Having also examined the general measures and in particular the awareness-raising measures taken by the Bulgarian authorities to ensure that applicable domestic law is interpreted in conformity with the Convention and thus to prevent violations similar to that found by the European Court (see details in Appendix);
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)46
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov and Ivanov and others against Bulgaria
Introductory case summary
These cases relate to the unjustified prohibition by the authorities of a number of commemorative meetings between 1998 and 2003 in south-west Bulgaria and in Sofia (violations of Article 11).
The European Court noted with concern that one of the prohibitions was imposed in 2003 on grounds, which had been previously declared contrary to the Convention in the case of Stankov and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (hereafter “UMO Ilinden”) against Bulgaria (judgment of 02/10/2001). The European Court also observed that on one occasion the authorities appeared somewhat reluctant to take all appropriate measures to prevent violent acts directed against the participants in Ilinden’s rally. The case of Ivanov and others also relates to the lack of an effective remedy at the applicants’ disposal to complain against the prohibitions of their meetings (violation of Article 13).
The European Court referred to its case-law according to which grounds such as threat of disruption of the public order or danger for the territorial integrity and the security of the country could not justify restrictions to the freedom of assembly when there is no real foreseeable risk of violent action and the initiators of the meeting in question had not hinted at any intention to use violence or other undemocratic means to achieve their aims (see also the judgment Stankov and UMO Ilinden, cited above). The Court also noted that the risk that some of the participants in the rallies of Ilinden might broadcast separatist slogans could not itself justify their banning.
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
UMO Ilinden and Ivanov
(44079/98)
6 000 EUR
800 EUR
6 800 EUR
Paid on 12/05/2006
Ivanov and others
46336/99
2 000 EUR
2 000 EUR
Paid on 18/05/2006
b) Individual measures
1) Meetings in 2006-2008: The Bulgarian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that in 2006 only 2 out of 10 requests for organisation of meetings had been rejected. They consider that the two requests in question were rejected on grounds which are compatible with the requirements of the Convention. The police ensured the security of the participants and the public order at the authorised meetings.
In 2007, the applicants complained before the Committee of the ban by the Governor of the Blagoevgrad region of a commemorative meeting they organised for 22/04/2007. The Committee noted this ban with concern as it was based on grounds already incriminated by the European Court, but noted in this respect with satisfaction that the meeting in question had nevertheless taken place, in particular following the intervention of the Government Agent (see the decision adopted by the Committee at the 997th meeting, June 2007). However, the applicants disputed the fact that meeting in question had taken place, claiming that they had encountered various problems related to the transportation of the participants, complaining of the behaviour of the police and the fact that they had not been authorised to carry out certain actions (play music, make speeches, lay wreaths or raise flags). They lodged a new application with the European Court with regard to these facts (application No. 48284/07, the statement of facts is available on Hudoc).
2) Meetings in 2008-2010: In 2008, the Bulgarian authorities indicated that the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN (hereafter “UMO Ilinden – PIRIN”) had declared itself satisfied, in certain publications on its website, with the organisation of two commemorative meetings which took place in April and in May 2008. The authorities specified that the presence of a great number of police officers, which was criticised by the applicants, was necessary to ensure the protection of the participants in these meetings against possible violent counter-demonstrations. The authorities observed that the absence of such a protection was criticised by the European Court in the judgment in UMO Ilinden and Ivanov (see §115 of the judgment).
The Bulgarian authorities submitted further information indicating that more than 20 officially notified events organised by UMO Ilinden and UMO Ilinden – PIRIN took place during the period 01/01/2009 -15/08/2010. Only two events were not authorised during this period (in May and in September 2009), according to the authorities on grounds which are compatible with the Convention. In addition, the authorities specified that, even though the municipalities were not informed of a certain number of other events, the applicants were not prevented from proceeding with their organisation.
They indicated that the second application currently pending before the European Court (see application No. 37586/04, the statement of facts is available on Hudoc) concerns alleged bans or the manner in which the applicants’ meetings took place between March 2004 and September 2009 and that no complaint had been submitted by the applicants before the Committee since 2007.
In addition, the authorities consider that the awareness-raising measures described below, as well as the measures concerning the effectiveness of the domestic remedies in the field of freedom of peaceful meetings are also expected to further consolidate the positive trend already observed as regards the applicants’ meetings.
II.General measures
1) Organisation of peaceful meetings: The authorities recalled that following the judgment in Stankov and UMO Ilinden of 2001 (Final Resolution ResDH(2004)78), a copy of the judgment translated into Bulgarian and accompanied by a circular letter was sent to the mayors of the towns of Petrich and Sandanski, directly concerned by this case. As the violations found in the present cases also concern other towns, the judgments of the European Court were also sent to the mayors of Sofia and Blagoevgrad, to draw their attention to the requirements of the Convention and to ensure that domestic law is interpreted in conformity with it.
The judgments were also sent to the district courts of the cities cited above, as well as to the competent prosecutors and to the directors of the National Security Service, of the Police Directorate of Sofia and of the Directorate of the Interior of Blagoevgrad. The dissemination of the judgments in these cases was made by a letter drawing the authorities’ attention to the main conclusion of the European Court in these cases, as well as to the fact that this communication was made within the framework of the adoption of the general measures for the execution of the European Court’s judgments.
In addition, following the present judgments, several training activities have been organised. A seminar for judges and prosecutors on freedom of association and assembly with the participation of the Council of Europe was organised by the National Institute of Justice in October 2007. Another seminar on this subject, for judges, prosecutors, representatives of the Ombudsman’s Office, lawyers and NGOs was organised in December 2007 by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for execution of judgments. Yet another training activity for mayors and police chiefs took place in May 2008. Another seminar for judges and prosecutors was organised by the National Institute of Justice in June 2008. In October 2008 a group of judges from the Supreme Court of Cassation, of prosecutors and of representatives of the Government Agent’s Office paid a study visit to the Council of Europe during which they participated in a working seminar.
The government undertook to continue to organise awareness-raising activities in the field of application of Article 11 of the Convention (see final resolution CM/ResDH(2009)120 adopted in the case of UMO Ilinden‑PIRIN and others against Bulgaria).
2) Effective remedies: The violation found by the European Court was due to the fact that according to the Meetings and Marches Act as it stood at the relevant time, the mayoral ban of a meeting was appealable before a body that no longer existed (the Executive Committee of the People’s Council). The Act was amended in 2010 and the relevant provisions entered into force in March 2010. According to the amended provisions, organisers of meetings and demonstrations to take place outdoors must inform the mayor of the district concerned 48 hours in advance. The mayor may ban a meeting for the reasons set out in the law, no later that 24 hours after the notification by the organisers. The mayor’s decision may be appealed before the competent administrative court, which must give its decision, which is final, within 24 hours.
Thus, the 2010 amendments to the Meeting and Marches Act removed the reference to a review body that had ceased to exist, which was creating confusion as to the procedure to be followed.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have put an end to the violations founds by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Bulgaria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy