Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79
October 2005
Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece - 74989/01
Judgment 20.10.2005 [Section I]
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Local authorities who incited and participated in demonstrations against a political party defending a minority, and passivity of the police towards the incidents: violation
Facts: The applicants are a political party, Ouranio Toxo, founded in 1994, and two members of its political secretariat. The party’s declared aims include the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece and it has regularly taken part in elections since 1994. In September 1995 the party established its headquarters in Florina. It affixed a sign with the party’s name in the two languages spoken in the region, Greek and Macedonian, to the balcony of the premises. It included the word “vino-zito”, written in the “Slavic alphabet”. This means “rainbow” in Macedonian but was also the rallying cry of forces who had sought to capture the town of Florina during the civil war in Macedonia. On 12 September 1995 priests from the church in Florina published a statement calling on the people to join a “demonstration to protest against the enemies of Greece who arbitrarily display signs with anti-Hellenic inscriptions”. The following day the town council published in the local press a resolution it had adopted to organise protests against the applicants, and the public prosecutor ordered the removal of the sign on the ground that the inclusion of the party’s name in Macedonian was liable to sow discord among the local population. On 13 September 1995 police officers removed the sign without giving any explanation to the applicants, who proceeded to install a replacement. That evening the applicants alleged that they were insulted and threatened by a crowd that had gathered in front of the party headquarters among whom they apparently recognised the mayor and town councillors. At about 1.30 a.m. a number of people attacked the party headquarters, entered the premises and assaulted those inside, demanding that they hand over the sign, which the applicants did. A second attack followed at approximately 4 a.m., in the course of which equipment and furniture on the premises were thrown out of the window and set on fire. The applicants alleged that, while these events were taking place, they telephoned the police station located some 500 metres from the party headquarters, but were told that no officers were available to come out. The public prosecutor’s office took no action against those involved in the incidents. Criminal proceedings for inciting discord were brought against the applicants who are members of the association, but they were eventually acquitted. They lodged a criminal complaint against those responsible for the incidents and applied to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties, but they were unsuccessful.
Law: Article 11 – The police had removed the sign bearing the party's name in Macedonian. Ouranio Toxo was a lawfully constituted party one of whose aims was the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece. Affixing a sign to the front of its headquarters with the party’s name written in Macedonian could not be regarded as reprehensible or considered to constitute in itself a present and imminent threat to public order. The use of the term “vino-zito” had admittedly aroused hostile sentiment among the local population, as its ambiguous connotations were liable to offend the political or patriotic views of the majority of the population of Florina. However, the risk of causing tension within the community by using political terms in public did not suffice, by itself, to justify interference with freedom of association.As regards the authorities’ conduct, two days before the incidents the town council had clearly incited the town population to gather in protest against the applicants and some of its members had taken part in the protests. It had thus helped through its conduct to arouse the hostile sentiment of a section of the population against the applicants. The role of State authorities was to defend and promote the values inherent in a democratic system, such as pluralism, tolerance and social cohesion. It would have been more in keeping with those values for the local authorities to advocate a conciliatory stance, rather than to stir up confrontational attitudes.With regard to the conduct of the police, they could reasonably have foreseen the danger that the tension would boil over into violence and clear violations of freedom of association. The State should therefore have taken appropriate measures to prevent or, at least, contain the violence. However, that had not been done. Despite being contacted repeatedly, the police, who were stationed in the vicinity, had not intervened on the night of the attack, allegedly because of a lack of manpower. Moreover, the public prosecutor had not considered it necessary to start an investigation in the wake of the incidents to determine responsibility. It was only once the applicants had lodged a complaint that the investigation had begun. In cases of interference with freedom of association by individuals, the competent authorities had a duty to take effective investigative measures. For those reasons, the Court found that by both their acts and omissions the Greek authorities had breached Article 11.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – the Court made an award by way of reparation for the damages and for costs and expenses.
© 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