STANKOV, TRAYANOV, STOYCHEV, UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION "ILINDEN", MECHKAROV and OTHERS v. BULGARIA

                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 29221/95               Application No. 29222/95

by Boris STANKOV and others            by Slavcho TRAYANOV and others

against Bulgaria                       against Bulgaria

Application Bo. 29223/95               Application No. 29225/95

by Blagoy STOYCHEV and others          by United Macedonian

against Bulgaria                       Organisation "ILINDEN"

                                       and others

                                       against Bulgaria

                 Application No. 29226/95

                 by Stoyan MECHKAROV and others

                 against Bulgaria

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 21

October 1996, the following members being present:

           Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

                 F. MARTINEZ

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 P. LORENZEN

                 K. HERNDL

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having

regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the applications: by 1) Boris STANKOV and

others, 2) Slavcho TRAYANOV and others, 3) Blagoy STOYCHEV and others,

4) United Macedonian Organization "ILINDEN" and others, 5) Stoyan

MECHAKAROV and others, against Bulgaria, introduced on dates indicated

in the Annex to this decision, and registered on 10 November 1996 under

files Nos. 29221/95, 29222/95, 29223/95, 29225/95 and 29226/95,

respectively.

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant in application No. 29225/95 is the United

Macedonian Organisation "Ilinden".  Applications Nos. 29221/95,

29222/95, 29223/95 and 29226/95 are submitted by twenty-three

individual applicants, whose names and the dates of their first letters

to the Commission are listed in the annex to this decision.

      The applicant association, as well as the twenty-three individual

applicants are represented by Mr. Iordan Kostadinov Ivanov, a Bulgarian

national residing in Sandanski, President of the applicant association.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be

summarised as follows.

      Refusal to register the applicant association

      The United Macedonian Organisation "Ilinden", the applicant

association in Application No. 29225/95, was founded on 14 April 1990.

It applied to the Blagoevgrad Regional Court (Okrazhen sad) for

registration as a non-profit organisation under the Law on Persons and

Family (Zakon za litsata i semeistvoto). The application was refused

by the Regional Court on 12 July 1990.  On 9 November 1990 this

decision was confirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court (Varhoven sad).

The applicant association's ensuing petition for review before the

five-member Chamber of the Supreme Court (petchlenen sastav na VS) was

dismissed on 11 March 1991.

      In these proceedings the courts examined the statute of the

association, its programme and other written evidence such as, inter

alia, an appeal to the population of Pirin Macedonia distributed by the

applicant association and the text of its public address on the

occasion of the "Day of the Bulgarian Alphabet".

      The courts found that the applicant association's aims were

directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national

and ethnic hatred, and that it was dangerous for the  territorial

integrity of Bulgaria.  Therefore, its registration would be contrary

to Sections 3, 8 and 52 para. 3 of the Constitution of 1971, as in

force at the time (see below Relevant domestic law).  Thus, according

to its programme and as it transpired from its submissions to the

courts, the aims of the association included inter alia the

"recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria", the "political

development of Macedonia" and the "united, independent Macedonian

state".  Moreover, the association was advocating enmity and rejection.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court it had stated that "the Macedonian

people would not accept Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian rule".  The formal

declaration, contained in the applicant association's statute, that it

would not infringe the territorial integrity of Bulgaria, appeared

inconsistent with the remaining material.

      Incidents between 1990 and 1992

      On 19 December and again on 26 December 1990 Mr. Kocelov, an

applicant in Application No. 29221/95, and three other persons were

allegedly ill-treated by the police when they were collecting

signatures in support of the applicant association.  The police

allegedly confiscated the list with the signatures.   On 25 May 1991

Mr. Tilev, an applicant in Application No. 29223/95, and three other

persons were allegedly ill-treated by the police in similar

circumstances.  On 4 May 1991 Mr. Zlatinov and Mr. Petrov, applicants

in Application No. 29223/95, were allegedly beaten by civilians and

policemen when they attempted to lay a wreath at a monument.

      Meeting of 19 April 1992

      On 19 April 1992, apparently without officially informing the

authorities, the applicant association attempted to organise a march

and meeting at the Rozhen Monastery in commemoration of a historical

event.  The participants gathered in the village of Rozhen but were not

allowed to proceed further as the police blocked their way.  The police

then allegedly started beating the people, among them some of the

applicants in Application No. 29222/95.

      Mr. Trayanov, one of the participants, visited a doctor on 22

April 1992, who issued a certificate stating that he had two bruises.

In October 1992 he allegedly submitted a complaint to the prosecution

authorities but did not receive a reply.

      Mr. Gagolevichin was allegedly hit and lost consciousness.  He

visited a doctor in Bansko.  The doctor, a Ms. K., allegedly refused

to issue him with a certificate.  Since the incident of 19 April 1992

Mr. Gagolevichin allegedly has had constant health problems.  Thus, in

1993 he had to spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital.

      Mr. Radonov, Mr. Dzhorov, Mr. Petkov, Mr. Topolnikliev and Ms.

Kiryanova were allegedly beaten but did not seek medical assistance as

they knew that they would not obtain a certificate.

      Incident of 2 August 1992

      On 2 August 1992 members of the applicant association were not

allowed to approach a site at the outskirts of Sandanski to commemorate

a historical event.  Mr. Stankov, an applicant in Application No.

29221/95, was among them.  He and others were arrested and kept at the

police station for several hours.

      Request for changes in the programme of State schools

      On 14 November 1992 the applicant association requested the

Ministry of Education to introduce the following changes in the

programme of State schools in the region: "the study of Bulgarian

history to be replaced by the study of native history"; part of the

classes in Bulgarian language to be devoted to the study of the mother

tongue; and classes in international protection of human rights to be

introduced.  No response was received.

      Confiscation of the applicant association's newspaper

      On 14 April 1993, upon the order of the Blagoevgrad Regional

Prosecutor (Okrazhen prokuror), the police conducted a search and

confiscated from the applicant association's President the editor's

copy of a newspaper, before its submission for publication.  This was

the third issue of the applicant association's newspaper "Skornuvane".

The newspaper was the edition of a private company, which belonged to

the President's brother, but its sub-title described it as the organ

of the applicant association.

      No proceedings challenging the confiscation have been instituted

by the applicant association or by the newspaper's publishers.

Apparently no attempts have been made to publish other issues of the

newspaper.

      Also, no proceedings have apparently been instituted by the State

to prosecute the publishers of the newspaper.

      Meeting of 24 April 1993

      On 24 April 1993, apparently without informing the authorities

in advance as provided for under the Law on Manifestations and Meetings

(Zakon za sabraniata, mitingite i manifestatsiite), the applicant

association organised a meeting at the Rozhen Monastery in

commemoration of a historical event, the anniversary of the death of

Yane Sandanski.  As the police had blocked the road leading to the

Monastery, the participants returned to a nearby village.  They stayed

there while some representatives of the applicant association attempted

to convince the police to allow the laying of flowers at the tomb of

Yane Sandanski.  The police then dispersed the participants, allegedly

hitting them with truncheons, kicking them and throwing them on the

ground.

      Mr. Trenchev, one of the applicants in Application No. 29223/95,

was allegedly hit in the back, fell on the ground and was then kicked

several times.  On the next day he was allegedly taken to hospital by

his family.  He submits that he underwent an X-ray examination which

showed that he had a broken vertebra.  Mr. Trenchev submits that he

stayed in hospital for an unspecified period of time.  He allegedly

requested a Doctor F. to provide him with a medical certificate but

this was refused as the authorities had allegedly ordered the

physicians in the region not to issue certificates to persons connected

with the applicant association.  Between 14 September and 21 October

1993 Mr. Trenchev was allegedly again in hospital in relation to the

problems with his back caused by the incident of 24 April 1993.  He

submits that he still has back pain and that he cannot lean.

      Mr. Dzhupanov, another applicant in Application No. 29223/95, was

allegedly beaten.  As a result he had bleeding wounds and numerous

bruises.  He allegedly visited a doctor, but was refused a medical

certificate.

      Mr. Zlatinov, Mr. Bachev, Mr. Iliev, Mr. Petrov and Mr. Tilev,

also applicants in Application No. 29223/95, were hit with truncheons

by the police.  They did not visit a doctor after the incident.

      None of the applicants has submitted a complaint for the

prosecution of the police officers or a civil claim for damages.

      On 19 October 1993 the applicant association complained to the

prosecution authorities on behalf of its members and requested the

punishment of those responsible for the events of 24 April 1993. No

response was received.

      Incident of 15 April 1994

      On 15 April 1994 the applicants in Application No. 29226/95, Mr.

Mechkarov, Mr. Iliev and Mr. Vassilev, were affixing posters at the

entrance of a department store in Blagoevgrad announcing a forthcoming

commemorative meeting to be organised by the applicant association.

      Two uniformed policemen approached them, put handcuffs on their

hands and brought them to the police station.  There the three

applicants were allegedly threatened and ordered to give information

about the applicant association.  The applicants signed without

objections a procès-verbal and were released.  The applicants did not

submit objections within the pertinent time-limit and on 3 May 1994

they were fined for having contravened local municipal regulations.

      On an unspecified date the applicants submitted to the District

Prosecutor (Raionen prokuror) a complaint alleging that they had been

subjected to "physical and psychological brutality" at the police

station.  On 5 July 1994 the District Prosecutor refused to open

criminal proceedings against the police officers as the applicants'

allegations had proved unfounded.  The applicants had been brought to

the police station for the preparation of a procès-verbal because they

had not presented any identification document when requested by the

police.   The applicants appealed to the Regional Prosecutor (Okrazhen

prokuror), who on 1 August 1994 confirmed the refusal.

      Refusal of authorisation for marches and meetings

      On 28 June 1993 the applicant association, represented by Mr.

Stankov as President of its branch in Petrich, requested the mayor of

Petrich to authorise a march and a meeting to commemorate certain

historical events.  This was to take place on 1 August 1993 in the

outskirts of the town, at a historical site.  On 6 July 1993 permission

was refused by the mayor as the applicant association was not

authorised in law.  The applicant association allegedly appealed to the

Petrich District Court (Raionen sad) but did not receive a response.

      In July 1994, for the commemoration of the next anniversary of

the same historical events, Mr. Stankov on behalf of the applicant

association requested the mayor of Petrich to authorise a march and a

meeting to be held on 31 July 1994.  On 13 July 1994 permission was

refused by the mayor.  The applicant association appealed to the

Petrich District Court.  On 16 July 1994 the Court dismissed the

appeal.  The Court found that since the applicant association was

banned, there were well-founded fears that the march would endanger the

public order and the rights and freedoms of others.  Despite the

refusal of the authorities, on 31 July 1994 some members of the

applicant association attempted to approach the historical site but the

police blocked their way.   On 10 April 1995 the applicant association

requested the mayor of Sandanski to authorise a meeting to be held on

22 April 1995 at the Rozhen Monastery in commemoration of a historical

event.  This was refused on 14 April 1995 as the applicant association

was not duly registered by the courts.  On 15 April 1995 the applicant

association appealed to the Sandanski District Court stating inter alia

that the Macedonian people were deprived of their right to their own

cultural life and that this was a violation of international law.  The

Court allegedly did not examine the appeal.

      In July 1995, as in previous years, the applicant association

again requested a permission to hold a commemoration march and a

meeting at the historical site around Petrich on 30 July 1995.  The

reasons for the refusals of the mayor of Petrich of 14 July 1995 and

of the Petrich District Court of 18 July 1995 were identical to those

contained in their decisions of July 1994.

      Alleged campaign in the media

      In 1991 the applicant association allegedly requested to be

granted certain time every week on the local radio, but did not receive

a response.

      Between 1990 and 1995 on several occasions the local and the

national private press published articles mentioning the applicant

association.  The applicants refer in particular to fifteen

publications from this period.  Some of them included interviews with

representatives of the police and of the prosecution authorities who

explained that their actions to disperse the applicant association's

meetings had been necessary to stop its unlawful activities.  Several

others informed the readers about bomb alerts, allegedly prompted by

telephone calls on behalf of the applicant association.  The articles

stated that the ensuing searches conducted by the police had caused the

closure of department stores for several hours and that no bombs had

been found.  In one article a leader of a local political movement

hostile to the applicant association stated that most of the applicant

association's members were psychopaths, or people with low intellectual

abilities.

B.    Relevant domestic law

1.    The Constitution of 1971:

      This Constitution was in force, with some amendments adopted in

1990, until July 1991.  Its Section 3 provided that the State should

defend the interest of the people.  Section 8 provided inter alia that

the law should be applied strictly.

      Section 52 para. 3 provided as follows:

     "(3) Organisations whose aims are contrary to the socialist

order in Bulgaria or to the rights of the citizens, or which

advocate a fascist or another anti-democratic ideology shall be

prohibited."

2.    The Constitution of July 1991:

Section 43

      "(1) Everyone shall have the right to peaceful and unarmed

assembly at meetings and manifestations.

      (2)  The procedure for organising and holding meetings and

manifestations shall be provided for by act of Parliament.

      (3)  Permission shall not be required for meetings to be

held indoors."

Section 44

     "...

     (2) Organisations whose activities are directed against the

sovereignty or the territorial integrity of the country or

against the unity of the nation, or aim at stirring racial,

national, ethnic or religious hatred, or at violating the rights

and freedoms of others, as well as organisations creating secret

or para-military structures, or which seek to achieve their aims

through violence, shall be prohibited."

3.    The Law on Manifestations and Meetings of 1990:

Section 12

     "...

     (2)   The [mayor] can prohibit the holding of a meeting, of

a march or of a manifestation, where reliable information

exists that:

           1. it aims at the violent overturning of the

Constitutional public order or is directed against the

territorial integrity of the country;

           2. it would endanger the public order in the local

community;

            ...

           4. it would breach the rights and freedoms of

others."

      Section 12 para. 6 provides that the refusal of the mayor can be

appealed against to the District Court, whose decision is final.

4.    The Penal Code

Sections 146 - 148 of the Penal Code provide that insult and libel are criminally punishable.

COMPLAINTS

1.The following complaints under Article 11 of the Convention are raised by the following applicants:

a)complaint by the applicant association of the refusal of the courts in 1990 and 1991 to register it (see above Refusal to register the applicant association).

b)complaints by the applicant association and eight individual applicants (the applicants in Application No. 29222/95) of the dispersal of the meeting on 19 April 1992 (see above Meeting of 19 April 1992).

c)complaints by the applicant association and one individual applicant (Mr. Stankov, Application No. 29221/95) of the dispersal of the meeting on 2 August 1992 (see above Incident of 2 August 1992).

d)complaints by the applicant association and twelve individual applicants (the applicants in Application No. 29223/95) of the dispersal of the meeting on 24 April 1993 (see above Meeting of 24 April 1993).

e)complaint by the applicant association and one individual applicant (Mr. Stankov, Application No. 29221/95) of the refusal of the authorities to allow the holding of a meeting on 1 August 1993 (see above Refusal of authorisation for marches and meetings).

f)complaints by the applicant association and one individual applicant (Mr. Stankov, Application No. 29221/95) of the refusal of the authorities to allow the holding of marches and meetings on 31 July 1994, 22 April and 30 July 1995 (see above Refusal of authorisation for marches and meetings).

2.The following complaints under Article 3 of the Convention of alleged police ill-treatment are raised by the following applicants:

a)complaints by four individual applicants (Mr. Kocelov and Mr. Tilev, Application No. 29221/95; Mr. Zlatinov and Mr. Petrov, Application No. 29223/95) of the events on 19 December and 26 December 1990, 4 May and 25 May 1991 respectively (see above Incidents between 1990 and 1992).

b)complaints by the eight individual applicants in Application No. 29222/95 (their names indicated in the annex) of the events of 19 April 1992 (see above Meeting of 19 April 1992).

c)complaint by one individual applicant (Mr. Stankov, Application No. 29223/95) of the events of 2 August 1992 (see above Incident of 2 August 1992).

d)complaints by seven of the individual applicants in Application No. 29223/95 (their names indicated in the summary of facts) of the events of 24 April 1993 (see above Meeting of 24 April 1993).

e)complaints by three individual applicants (the applicants in Application No. 29226/95) of the events of 15 April 1994 (see above Incident of 15 April 1994).

3.The applicant association also complains under Article 10 of the Convention of the confiscation of its newspaper (see above               Confiscation of the applicant association's newspaper).

4.The applicant association and the individual applicants in all five applications also complain that Bulgaria does not recognise the existence of a Macedonian minority and of the Macedonian nation.  Thus, in the forms for the 1992 census of the population, in the space provided for declaring one's ethnic origin, there was no mention of a Macedonian ethnic origin.  The fact that there existed a space to be filled out under the heading "other [ethnic origin]" was not an adequate possibility for the Macedonians to declare their ethnic origin.  Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are allegedly breached.

5.The applicant association and all individual applicants complain that the Macedonian language cannot be used in the relations with the administration and that the Ministry of Education has refused to introduce the study of the Macedonian language and history in State schools (see above Request for changes in the programme of State schools).  The Macedonians allegedly have no right to teach or study their language.  There is allegedly no possibility to have religious services in Macedonian.  These problems amount to breaches of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

6.The applicant association and all individual applicants also complain of the alleged general campaign in the media against them (see above Alleged campaign in the media).  They were constantly the object of disparaging statements in the press, but were unable to publish responses to the allegations as the newspapers refused to do so.  This is, in the applicant association's view, another violation of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

7.The applicant association and all individual applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that there is no effective remedy against the violations of their rights: 

a)the individual applicants who complain of police ill-treatment (see complaint 2 above) assert that they could not obtain redress because the doctors in the region had been ordered not to issue medical certificates and because the prosecution authorities were not examining their complaints.

b)the applicant association complains that it cannot obtain any remedy against the violations of its rights and of the rights of the Macedonians in general.  Thus, on 14 November 1992 the applicant association sent a protest letter to the Parliament, to the President and to other institutions requesting, inter alia, that the Constitution be amended to allow the association's registration; that the Parliament declare Pirin Macedonia an autonomous region; and that the Prosecutor General resign.  However, no response was received.

c)therefore, as regards all complaints, the applicant association and the individual applicants contend that they should not be required to exhaust domestic remedies under Article 26 of the Convention.  They submit that the authorities are persistently refusing to take any action.  

THE LAW

1.The applicants in Applications Nos. 29221/95, 29222/95, 29223/95, 29225/95 and 29226/95 complain respectively of several incidents where some of them were allegedly ill-treated by the police; of the refusal of the courts to register the applicant association; of the refusal of the authorities on several occasions to allow the holding of marches and meetings; of the confiscation of a newspaper; and of the denial of certain alleged rights of the Macedonians.  The applicants invoke Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention.

The Commission, having regard to the similarities of the applications, finds it convenient to join them in accordance with Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure.

2.The Commission first recalls that the Convention does not make provision for any form of "actio popularis" but requires, when the right to individual petition under Article 25 is being exercised, that the applicant can claim to be the victim of a violation of the Convention  (No. 8612/79, Dec. 10.5.79, D.R. 15, p. 259).

The Commission, therefore, can consider each of the applicants' complaints only insofar as those who have raised the respective complaint can claim to be, personally, victims of a particular violation of their rights under the Convention.

3.The Commission further recalls that the Convention has entered into force in respect of Bulgaria on 7 September 1992 and that, in accordance with the generally recognised principles of international law, the Commission is only competent to examine complaints against violations of the Convention by virtue of acts, facts or decisions that have occurred after that date.

In the present case the Commission finds that the complaints summarised under numbers 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), as well as the complaints summarised under numbers 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) above, taken alone and in conjunction with the respective complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (complaint 7(a)), are outside its competence ratione temporis and, hence, incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2.

4.The applicant association and twelve individual applicants (the applicants in Application No. 29223/95) complain under Article 11 of the Convention of the dispersal of their meeting on 24 April 1993.

However, under Article 26 of the Convention the Commission may examine a complaint only after the exhaustion of all domestic remedies and within a period of six months after the date of the final decision.  Where no effective domestic remedies are available, the complaint has to be introduced within six months after the events complained of (cf. No. 9266/81, Dec. 28.1.83, D.R. 30 p. 155; No. 11660/85, Dec. 19.1.89, D.R. 59, p. 85).   

As regards the above complaint, even assuming that those who have raised it may claim to be victims, within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention, of a violation of their right to peaceful assembly, the Commission finds that they have not complied with Article 26 of the Convention as no domestic proceedings concerning the holding of the meeting have been instituted and, in any event, the complaints have been submitted outside the six months' time-limit.   

It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

5.The applicant association and one individual applicant (Mr. Stankov, Application No. 29221/95) also complain under Article 11 of the Convention of the refusal of the authorities to allow the holding of a meeting on 1 August 1993.

The Commission need not decide whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention as in any event the complaint is introduced outside the six months' time-limit under this provision. Thus, the applicants raised the above complaint for the first time in their letter to the Commission of 29 March 1995, whereas the last domestic decision was the refusal of the mayor of Petrich of 6 July 1993, more than a year and a half earlier.  It is true that the applicants contend that they have sought the quashing of the mayor's refusal by appealing to the Petrich District Court, but that the appeal was not examined.  However, even assuming that the applicants did submit an appeal and that they complain of the inactivity of the District Court, the Commission notes that the case concerned a request for permission for an event to take place on a certain date.  In their appeal the applicants stated that the refusal of the mayor was unlawful and asked the Court to quash it. It is therefore clear that after the date for which permission was sought, 1 August 1993, the appeal would have been without object.  In these circumstances the Commission finds that the running of the six months' time-limit under Article 26 of the Convention was not affected by the alleged inactivity of the Petrich District Court after 1 August 1993 and that, therefore, the above complaint has been submitted out of time.   

It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

6.The applicant association and one individual applicant (Mr. Stankov, Application No. 29221/95) also complain under Article 11 of the Convention of the refusal of the authorities to allow the holding of marches and meetings on 31 July 1994, 22 April and 30 July 1995.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the above complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.

7.Seven individual applicants (those of the applicants in Application No. 29223/95 whose names are indicated in the summary of facts) complain under Article 3 of the Convention of the alleged ill-treatment by the police on 24 April 1993 and under Article 13 of the Convention of the alleged lack of an effective remedy as regards this violation of the Convention.

However, the Commission finds that the applicants have not complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention.  None of them has submitted a complaint to the competent authorities.  There is no indication that when complaining to the prosecution authorities on 19 October 1993 the applicant association was empowered by the seven individuals concerned to act on their behalf.  In any event, even assuming that the applicants did not have effective remedies at their disposal, they failed to submit their complaints to the Commission within the six months' time-limit of the events complained of.

It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

8.Three individual applicants (the applicants in Application No. 29226/95) complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they have been ill-treated by the police on 15 April 1994 and under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy as regards this violation.

However, the Commission finds that, even assuming that the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies, they failed to submit their applications to the Commission within the six months' time-limit under Article 26 of the Convention.  Thus, whereas the last decision as regards the applicants' complaints was the Regional Prosecutor's decision of 1 August 1994, Mr. Mechkarov first wrote to the Commission on 29 March 1995.  The other two applicants concerned wrote to the Commission even later, on 12 October 1995. 

It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

9.The applicant association also complains under Article 10 of the Convention of the confiscation of its newspaper on 14 April 1993 and under Article 13 of the Convention of the alleged lack of an effective remedy against this violation.

The Commission need not examine whether the applicant association may claim to be a victim of an alleged breach of Article 10 resulting from the event complained of.  The complaint is in any event inadmissible as the applicant association has failed to comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention.  It has not instituted any domestic proceedings and, even assuming that no effective remedies were available, it has submitted its complaint to the Commission more than six months after the confiscation of the newspaper.

It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

10.The applicant association and all individual applicants also complain that Bulgaria does not recognise the existence of a Macedonian minority and of a Macedonian nation and that they do not have an effective remedy against this situation.  They invoke Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention.

However, insofar as the applicants' complaint can be considered as relating to a claim for self-determination or for collective rights of a minority, the Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee such rights (cf. No. 6742/74, D.R. 3, p. 98; No. 7230/75, D.R. 7, p. 109; Nos. 9278/81 and 9451/81, Dec. 3.10.83, D.R. 35, p. 30, 35).

Furthermore, insofar as each of the individual applicants may be understood as raising a complaint of a particular interference with the exercise of his rights under the provisions invoked, the Commission need not decide whether the individual applicants have complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention, as these complaints are in any event manifestly ill-founded. 

The Commission notes that the only particular fact submitted by the applicants is the lack of a special mention of a Macedonian ethnic origin in the forms for the 1992 census of the population.  None of the applicants has shown that the alleged non-recognition of a Macedonian minority engenders for him or her such direct practical consequences as to amount to an interference with the right, for example, to respect for a person's private life under Article 8 of the Convention, or with the other rights guaranteed by the Convention (cf. No. 8142/78, Dec. 10.10.79, D.R. 18, p. 88).

It follows that the above complaint has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

11.The applicant association and all individual applicants also complain that in certain cases they cannot use the Macedonian language and that they are denied education in Macedonian.  They also complain of an alleged discrimination on this basis and invoke Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

The Commission, having examined the above complaint under Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, need not decide whether any of the applicants may claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention resulting from the alleged problems in using the Macedonian language and whether the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention as regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies have been complied with, as the complaint is in any event manifestly ill-founded.

Also, for these reasons the Commission need not examine the scope, the validity and the relevance in the present case of the declaration of the Republic of Bulgaria contained in the instrument of ratification of the Convention and concerning Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Commission first recalls that no right to the use of a particular language is guaranteed by the Convention to citizens in all their contacts with the authorities (No. 2333/64, Yearbook 8, p. 338; No. 10650/83, Dec. 17.5.85, D.R. 42, p. 212; No. 11100/84, Dec. 12.12.85, D.R. 45, p. 240).

Also, the Court has held that a right to education in a particular language or a right to obtain from the State the creation of a particular kind of educational establishment cannot be derived from Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 or from Article 8 of the Convention.  The obligation of the State to respect the right of parents to ensure education for their children in conformity with their "philosophical convictions" does not encompass linguistic preferences.  In 1951 the Committee which drafted Protocol No. 1 to the Convention set aside a proposal put forward in this sense, several of its members having believed that it concerned an aspect of the problem of ethnic minorities and that it thus fell outside the scope of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, judgment in the "Belgian Linguistic Case" of 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6, p. 32).       

In any event, insofar as certain aspects of the above complaints may be considered as falling to be examined under the Convention, the Commission finds that they are unsubstantiated.  The applicants have not submitted any particular fact as regards, for example, the alleged obstacles to using Macedonian in church.  It is unclear why they would not be able to establish their own places of worship or otherwise enjoy their right to freedom of religion (cf. No. 24019/94, Dec. 11.4.96, unpublished).  Furthermore, the applicants have not shown that there are any obstacles to the study of the Macedonian language in private schools or that they are in any way discriminated against, for example, in respect of the possibility to establish such schools.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of the Convention and has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 2.

12.The applicant association and all individual applicants also complain of the alleged general campaign in the media against them.  They invoke Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

However, the Commission notes that the applicants refer to fifteen publications in private newspapers, for which the State cannot be held responsible.  Furthermore, insofar as some of the publications incorporate interviews and statements of State officials, these publications do not appear to have contained anything more than the expression of the official position that the applicant association was banned.  In any event, even assuming that State officials made insulting or calumnious statements against the applicants and that this may be considered as a State interference with certain of their rights under the invoked provisions, the Commission notes that no domestic proceedings have been instituted by any of the applicants and that they could, for example, seek the prosecution of those liable under Sections 146 - 148 of the Penal Code.  Therefore, the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention have not been complied with.

This complaint, therefore, has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the complaints, submitted by the applicant association and Mr. Boris Stankov, of the refusal of the authorities to allow the holding of marches and meetings on 31 July 1994, 22 April and 30 July 1995;

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

        H.C. KRÜGER                              S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                         President

     to the Commission                        of the Commission

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy