|
In both cases - United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov
v. Bulgaria and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - PIRIN
and Others v. Bulgaria - the Court held, unanimously, that there had
been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded
the applicants in the first case 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage
and EUR 800 for costs and expenses and the applicants in the second, EUR
3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria
The applicants are the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (UMO Ilinden)
and its chairperson, Yordan Ivanov. UMO Ilinden is an association founded
on 14 April 1990 and based in south?west Bulgaria, in an area known as
the Pirin Region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia. In 1990,
1998-99 and 2002-04 it applied unsuccessfully for registration; the courts
found, among other things, that "its statute and programme were directed
against the unity of the nation". Every year from 1990 UMO Ilinden
tried to organise commemorative meetings, which were banned by the authorities.
(See the Court's judgment in the case Stankov and the United Macedonian
Organisation Ilinden (2.10.2001)).
This case concerned the applicants' complaints that the members and followers
of UMO Ilinden were prevented from holding peaceful meetings on a number
of occasions during the period 1998?2003. The applicants relied on Article
11 (freedom of assembly).
The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been interferences
with the applicants' freedom of assembly concerning 12 events between
March 1998 and September 2003 and no interference concerning three events
during that period.
The Court accepted that those interferences were prescribed by law and
that the bans were intended to safeguard one or more of the interests
cited by the Bulgarian Government (protecting national security and the
territorial integrity of the country, guaranteeing public order in the
local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing
disorder and crime).
Despite the Government's assertion that, following the Court's judgment
in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, the authorities
had undertaken measures to ensure the exercise of the applicants' freedom
of assembly, the Court noted that, with a few exceptions, the authorities
persisted in their efforts to impede the holding of the commemorative
events which UMO Ilinden sought to organise.
The Court also recalled that, in a democratic society based on the rule
of law, political ideas which challenged the existing order and whose
realisation was advocated by peaceful means had to be afforded a proper
opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly,
as well as by other lawful means. The authorities were therefore bound
to take adequate measures to prevent violent acts directed against the
participants in Ilinden's rally, or at least limit their extent. However,
it seemed that they, while embarking on certain steps to enable the organisation's
commemorative event to proceed peacefully, did not take all the appropriate
measures which could reasonably have been expected from them under the
circumstances. The Bulgarian State therefore failed to discharge its positive
obligations under Article 11.
Finally, the Court noted with concern, one of the bans was imposed, with
almost identical reasoning, even after similar measures had been declared
contrary to Article 11 in the Court's judgment in Stankov and the United
Macedonian Organisation Ilinden.
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation
of Article 11.
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria
The applicants are: United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - Party for
Economic Development and Integration of the Population (UMO Ilinden -
PIRIN) and Mr Singartiyski, Mr Bikov and Mr Orozov, who were formerly
the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary of UMO Ilinden - PIRIN.
UMO Ilinden - PIRIN was a political party founded on 28 February 1998
and based in south?west Bulgaria, in the Pirin region. On 29 February
2000 the Bulgarian Constitutional Court found that the party and the organisations
which preceded it (in particular UMO Ilinden) had advocated separatist
ideas and "imperil[ed] [Bulgaria's] national security". The
party was consequently declared unconstitutional and dissolved.
The applicants complained that UMO Ilinden - PIRIN's dissolution was not
prescribed by law or necessary in a democratic society. They relied on
Article 11 (freedom of association).
The European Court of Human Rights found that UMO Ilinden - PIRIN's dissolution
did constitute an interference with its right of association. That interference
was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national
security.
In considering whether dissolving the applicant party was "necessary
in a democratic society" the Court noted that the interference in
question was radical: the applicant party was dissolved with immediate
effect. Such a drastic measure required very serious reasons by way of
justification before it could be considered proportionate to the legitimate
aim pursued; it would be warranted only in the most serious cases.
The Court observed that the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, in ordering
the applicant party's dissolution, did not find that any of the party's
leaders or members had made any calls for the use of violence or for the
rejection of democratic principles. Indeed, it conceded that the applicant
party had not engaged in any concrete action which could effectively endanger
the country's territorial integrity.
The Court considered that it was not unreasonable for the authorities
to suspect that certain leaders or members of the applicant party harboured
separatist views and had a political agenda that included the notion of
autonomy for the region of Pirin Macedonia or even its secession from
Bulgaria. However, the Court reiterated that a political party might campaign
for a change in the legal and constitutional structures of the State on
two conditions. Firstly, the means used to that end had to be, in every
respect, legal and democratic. Secondly, the change proposed had itself
to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. There was no
indication that those conditions were not met in the applicants' case.
As regards the first condition, it was noteworthy that on none of the
occasions cited by the Constitutional Court in support of its decision
did the applicant party's leaders and members hint at any intention to
use violence or any other undemocratic means to achieve their aims. There
was, furthermore, no indication in the case file that any practical actions
were undertaken by the applicant party which could pose a threat to Bulgaria's
national security. In that connection, the Court observed that the incidents
referred to by the Constitutional Court were rallies, speeches, press
conferences, letters or maps, in which members of the applicant party
or its predecessor organisations had stated that there existed a Macedonian
minority in Bulgaria and that the Pirin Region was not part of Bulgaria,
and had made certain peaceful demands.
Concerning the second condition, the Court considered, even if it might
be assumed that the political project advocated by the applicant party
was indeed the autonomy or even secession of Pirin Macedonia, it was not
necessarily at variance with the principles of democracy. The mere fact
that a political party called for autonomy or even requested secession
of part of the country's territory was not a sufficient basis to justify
its dissolution on national security grounds. In a democratic society
based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenged the existing
order without putting into question the tenets of democracy, and whose
realisation was advocated by peaceful means, had to be afforded a proper
opportunity of expression through, among other things, participation in
the political process. However shocking and unacceptable the statements
of the applicant party's leaders and members might appear to the authorities
or the majority of the population and however illegitimate their demands
might be, they did not appear to warrant the interference in question.
The fact that the applicant party's political programme was considered
incompatible with the prevailing principles and structures of the Bulgarian
State did not make it incompatible with the rules and principles of democracy.
It was of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political programmes
to be proposed and debated, even those that called into question the way
a State was currently organised, provided that they did not harm democracy
itself.
Moreover, there was no indication that the applicant party had any real
chance of bringing about political changes which would not meet with the
approval of everyone on the political stage. Indeed, it was recognised
that the public influence of the applicant party was negligible. It therefore
appeared that the constitutional court's holding that the applicant party's
activity truly "imperil[ed] [Bulgaria's] national security"
was not based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts.
Considering that there did not exist a pressing social need to order the
applicant party's dissolution and that the dissolution was therefore not
necessary in a democratic society, the Court held, unanimously, that there
had been a violation of Article 11.
top
|
|