Information Note on the Court’s case-law 187
July 2015
House of Macedonian Civilisation and Others - 1295/10
Judgment 9.7.2015 [Section I]
Article 46
Article 46-1
Abide by judgment
Complaint arising out of failure to comply with a judgment of the Court: inadmissible
Facts – In 1990 the members of the Provisional Board of Management of the non-profit association “House of Macedonian Civilisation”, which claimed to be “ethnically Macedonian” and to have a “Macedonian national awareness”, lodged a request for registration of their association. This request was rejected. By its judgment in the case of Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece (26695/95, 10 July 1998), the European Court found that that rejection violated Article 11 of the Convention.
In 2003 the applicants decided, together with others, to re-establish the association “House of Macedonian Civilisation”, the first applicant. The registration of that new association was once again rejected on the ground that the word “Macedonian” was liable to cause confusion both vis-à-vis States wishing to contact the applicant association in the exercise of its activities and among any individuals wishing to join the association. The domestic courts added that there was also a risk to public order because the existence of the applicant association could be exploited by persons wishing to promote the creation of a “Macedonian nation”, even though such a nation had never historically existed.
Relying on Articles 11 and 46 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the rejection of the first applicant’s request for registration.
Law – Article 46: The Court had first of all to examine whether, in addition to Article 11, the complaint should also be assessed separately under Article 46 of the Convention. In that regard it had had occasion to voice serious doubts as to whether Article 46 § 1 of the Convention could be interpreted as granting the applicant a right which could be asserted under an individual application to the Court. Even though it had jurisdiction to assess whether measures taken by a State to execute one of its judgments were compatible with the substantive provisions of the Convention, the Court considered that in principle it could not assess, under Article 46 § 1, whether a Contracting State had complied with the obligations flowing from one of its own judgments. The new paragraphs 4 and 5 added to Article 46 of the Convention by Article 16 of Protocol No. 14 seemed to confirm that approach.
Furthermore, apart from the fact that not all the applicants in the present case corresponded to those in the case of Sidiropoulos and Others, the issues raised under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention were closely linked to those raised under Article 11. Consequently, the Court assessed the complaint solely under the latter provision.
Conclusion: inadmissible (unanimously).
The Court unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the refusal to register the association.
Article 41: EUR 10,000 jointly in respect of 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