CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 juillet 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s216DBE45 { width:187.29pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s997D5775 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF0DD8255 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       SECOND SECTION           CASE OF VONA v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 35943/10)           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   9 July 2013     FINAL   09/12/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.   In the case of Vona v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President ,   Peer Lorenzen,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges , and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 35943/10) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr Gábor Vona (“the applicant”), on 24 June 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr T. Gaudi-Nagy, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3.     The applicant alleged under Article 11 of the Convention that the dissolution of the Hungarian Guard Association, which he chaired, had violated his freedom of association. 4.     On 14 March 2012 the Government were given notice of the application. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention). 5.     On 12 June 2012 the President of the Section granted the European Roma Rights Centre leave, under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44 § 3 of the Rules of Court, to intervene as a third party in the proceedings. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Budapest. 7.     On 8 May 2007 the Hungarian Guard Association ( Magyar Gárda Egyesület – “the Association”) was founded by ten members of the political party Movement for a Better Hungary ( Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom ) with the stated aim of, inter alia , preserving Hungarian traditions and culture. 8.     In its turn, on 18 July 2007 the Association founded the Hungarian Guard Movement ( Magyar Gárda Mozgalom – “the Movement”). The Bureau of the Association stated that it had decided to “create the Hungarian Guard, first operating it as a movement but later attempting to integrate it into the Association as a section”. It was also decided that “in order to integrate the Hungarian Guard into the Association, [the latter’s current] charter need[ed] to be amended ... by 10 October 2007”. The Movement’s objective was defined as “defending a physically, spiritually and intellectually defenceless Hungary”. The tasks undertaken by the Movement, as listed in its deed of foundation, included the physical and psychological training of its members, participation in disaster management and in ensuring public safety, as well as the initiation of a social dialogue regarding these issues through public events. 9.     On 4 October 2007 the Budapest public prosecutor’s office addressed a notice to the Association calling on it to terminate its unlawful activities. It was noted that the Association had carried out activities that were not in accordance with its aims as defined in its charter. In particular, it was observed that on 25   August 2007 it had organised the swearing-in of fifty-six “guardsmen” in Buda Castle. Subsequently, the Association had conducted a national campaign aimed at popularising tasks defined for the Movement which were not in accordance with the aims of the Association. It was noted that certain aims of the Movement were not amongst those defined for the Association, nor were they in conformity with the Association’s cultural and tradition-preserving nature. On 9 November 2007 the applicant, as chairman of the Association, notified the public prosecutor’s office that the unlawful activities had been terminated by deleting the impugned part from the Movement’s deed of foundation, and that he had initiated the amendment of the Association’s charter. Accordingly, on 7 December 2007 the General Assembly of the Association had decided to add the following provision to paragraph 2 of its charter: “(f) In accordance with its name, the Hungarian Guard Association has the aim of engaging in dialogue with society and of holding public events and gatherings for citizens on issues affecting their security, such as disaster management, national defence and life-saving techniques.” 10.     Purportedly in pursuit of these goals, members of the Movement dressed in uniform subsequently held rallies and demonstrations throughout Hungary, including in villages with large Roma populations, and called for the defence of “ethnic Hungarians” against so-called “Gypsy criminality”. These demonstrations and rallies were not prohibited by the authorities. One of these demonstrations, involving some 200 activists, was organised in Tatárszentgyörgy, a village of around 1,800 inhabitants, on 9   December 2007. The police were present and did not allow the march to pass through a street inhabited by Roma families. 11.     In reaction to this event, on 17 December 2007 the Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office lodged a court action seeking the dissolution of the Association. The action was based on the Association’s alleged abuse of the right to freedom of assembly and the fact that it had conducted activities which infringed the rights of the Roma by generating fear among them through speeches and appearance, that is to say, by the activists wearing uniforms, marching in formation and issuing military-style commands. The Chief Prosecutor’s Office was of the view that the Movement constituted a division of the Association, and that its activity in fact represented a significant part of the latter’s activities. It argued that the Movement was not a “spontaneous community”, in that its members were all registered, and stressed that it had been created by the presidency of the Association, that applications for membership were assessed by the Association and that its uniform could be bought from the Association. 12.     In the ensuing proceedings the Association claimed, however, that there were no organisational ties between itself and the Movement of a kind amounting to a unity of the two; accordingly, it argued that it bore no responsibility for the Movement. It also stated that, in any event, the Movement’s activities did not present any objective danger to anyone. According to the Association, a subjective feeling of fear could not give rise to any limitation on fundamental rights, including freedom of assembly; the Movement’s conduct had not been intimidating if regarded objectively. 13.     After holding four hearings the Budapest Regional Court ruled in favour of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office on 16 December 2008 and disbanded the Association under section 16(2)(d) of Act no. II of 1989 on the right to freedom of association (see paragraph 18 below). The court did not accept the arguments concerning the distinction between the two entities and held that a “symbiotic relationship” existed between them. It held that the principal activity of the Association had been the founding, operation, guidance and financing of the Movement, observing, inter alia , that the Movement received donations through the Association’s bank account. The legal effect of the judgment was nevertheless limited to the dissolution of the Association; since, in the court’s view, the Movement did not have any legal personality, the judgment did not directly extend to it. As regards the assembly in Tatárszentgyörgy, the Regional Court held as follows: “The essential purpose of the event was indeed to place the spotlight on ‘Gypsy criminality’. The use of this generalisation, clearly based on racial and ethnic grounds, violated the principle of equal human dignity ... Moreover, this was not a one-off occasion ... [The Movement] based its programme on discrimination between people and expressed it by way of marches in several cases; this amounted to a demonstration of power and to threatening others through the appearance [of the participants in the marches]. ... The court is of the opinion that, from a constitutional point of view, to raise fear, virtually as a mission, is unacceptable as an aim or role.” 14.     The court noted that the participants, who were uniformed, had worn armbands quite similar to those of officers of the Arrow Cross (responsible for the reign of terror in Hungary in 1944/45). It took the view that marches with participants dressed in this way were objectively capable of wounding “historical sensitivities”. The court went on to declare that, despite the Association’s stated purpose, its actions had violated Hungary’s laws on associations and created an atmosphere of anti-Roma sentiment. According to the court, the verbal and visual demonstration of power alone amounted to an infringement of the law, in the light of historical experience; thus, for the Association to be dissolved it was not necessary for it to have committed an actual offence: the fact that its programme encompassed discrimination amounted to prejudicing the rights of others within the meaning of section   2(2) of Act no. II of 1989 (see paragraph 18 below). 15.     On 2 July 2009 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Regional Court. It also considered two further similar demonstrations staged by the Movement, in the village of Fadd on 21 June 2008 and in the village of Sárbogárd on an unspecified date. The Court of Appeal noted that the speeches given by Movement members in the course of the Fadd rally had contained numerous remarks aimed at the exclusion of Roma. As to the Sárbogárd event, the Court of Appeal observed that there had been several anti-Semitic utterances. This court established a closer connection between the two entities, extending the scope of its judgment also to the Movement. It held that the Association in fact included the Movement as a “unit”; consequently, the judgment concerned both of them. The Association’s dissolution also dismantled the organisational framework of individuals operating within any movements related to the dissolved association. The court ruled that the choice of locations for the demonstrations, that is, villages with large Roma populations, could not be seen as social dialogue, but as an extreme form of expression in the context of a quasi ‑ military demonstration of force consisting of the cumulative effects of military-style uniforms, formations, commands and salutes. The Court of Appeal, while it upheld in essence the arguments of the Regional Court, argued that the population of the villages had been subjected as a “captive audience” to these extreme and exclusionist views without being able to avoid receiving them. In the court’s view, the events organised by the Movement constituted a risk of violence, generated conflict, breached public order and peace and violated the right to liberty and security of the inhabitants of the villages, despite the fact that all the demonstrations, which were tightly controlled by the police, had finished without any acts of actual violence. The court also considered the applicant’s freedom of expression. It stated, upholding the arguments of the first-instance judgment and citing the case-law of the Court, that this freedom did not cover hate speech or incitement to violence. 16.     On 15 December 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Budapest Court of Appeal. It endorsed the Court of Appeal’s finding that the Movement was in fact an entity within the Association. It also agreed with the lower courts as to the necessity of disbanding the Association, pointing out that the Movement’s rallies had caused situations of conflict whose protagonists might potentially have had recourse to violence. This decision was served on 28 January 2010. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 17.     The Constitution, as in force at the material time, contained the following provisions: Article 2 “3.     The activities of social organisations, government bodies or individual citizens may not be directed at the forcible acquisition or exercise of public power, or at the exclusive possession of such power. Everyone has the right and obligation to resist such activities in such ways as are permitted by law.” Article 63 “1.     In the Republic of Hungary every person has the right, on the basis of the right of association, to establish organisations whose goals are not prohibited by law and to join such organisations. 2.     The establishment of armed organisations with political objectives shall not be permitted on the basis of the right of association. 3.     A majority of two-thirds of the votes of the Members of Parliament present is required to pass the law on the right of assembly and the financial management and operation of political parties.” 18.     Act no. II of 1989 on the right to freedom of association provides as follows: Section 2 “(1)     By virtue of the right of association private individuals, legal persons and their entities which have no legal personality may, subject to the aims of their activities and the intention of their founders, form and operate civil society organisations. (2)     The exercise of the right of association may not violate Article 2 § 3 of the Constitution, nor may it constitute a criminal offence or incitement to a criminal offence, and may not prejudice the rights and liberties of others.” Section 3 “(1)     A civil society organisation is a voluntarily established self-governing organisation formed for a purpose stated in its articles of association, which has registered members and organises its members’ activities in order to further its purpose. (2)     Unregistered members may also participate in large-scale public events.” Section 4 “(1)     ... A civil society organisation comes into existence by means of registration with the courts.” Section 5 “A community of private individuals formed by virtue of the right of association, whose operation is not regular or which has no registered members or structure specified under this Act, shall not constitute a civil society organisation.” Section 16 “(2)     Upon an action brought by the public prosecutor, the court: ... (d)     shall dissolve the civil society organisation if its operation violates section   2(2) hereof; ...” The legal status of associations can be briefly characterised as follows. Associations whose activities do not serve a public interest cannot be supported by individuals by means of income-tax-deductible donations and are not entitled to receive other donations or to apply for public subsidies, as these privileges are reserved for public-benefit organisations under the provisions of Acts nos. CXXVI of 1996 and CLXXV of 2011. However, Act   no.   LXXXI of 1996 provides that income deriving from the non-profit activities of any association is exempt from corporate tax and that the associations’ business activities are subject to preferential corporate taxation. In addition, under Act no.   CXVII of 1995, advantageous income ‑ tax rules apply to certain services provided by associations and certain remunerations and social welfare benefits received from them. Furthermore, Act   no.   IV of 1959 (on the Civil Code) provides that the members of an association are not liable for the association’s debts. 19.     Act no. LXXVII of 1993 on the rights of national and ethnic minorities, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Section 4 “(1)     The Republic of Hungary prohibits all policies or conducts which: (a)     are aimed at or result in a minority’s assimilation into, or exclusion or segregation from, the majority nation; (b)     aim to change the national or ethnic composition of areas populated by minorities ...; (c)     persecute, impair the lives of or hamper the exercise of the rights of a minority or persons belonging to a minority on account of their belonging to a minority; ...” 20.     Law-Decree no. 8 of 1976, promulgating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 21st session on 16 December 1966, provides as follows: Article 20 “2.     Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” 21.     Law-Decree no. 8 of 1969, promulgating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted in New York on 21 December 1965, provides as follows: Article 1 “1.     In this Convention, the term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. ...” Article 2 “1.     States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: ... (d)     Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization; ...” Article 4 “States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which ... attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to ... (a)     ... declare an offence punishable by law all ... incitement to racial discrimination ... and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b)     ... declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law; ...” 22.     Decision no. 30/1992 (V.26) AB of the Constitutional Court contains the following passages: “II. 3.     The criminal codes of all democratic European countries with continental legal systems, as well as those of England and Wales, Canada and New Zealand. which have the Anglo-Saxon legal system, prohibit incitement on a ‘racial’ basis. The demarcation of the boundary between incitement, arousal of hatred and expression of opinion remains hotly contested even internationally. ... IV. 1.     The potential harms resulting from incitement to hate, and from humiliating expressions of contempt for certain groups in a population are amply documented in the annals of human experience. ... The tragic historical experiences of our century prove that views preaching racial, ethnic, national or religious inferiority or superiority and the dissemination of ideas of hatred, contempt and exclusion endanger the values of human civilization. It is proved both by history and by the events of our times that any utterance expressing an intention to arouse hatred against a specific group of people can push social tension to extremes, disturb social harmony and peace and in an extreme case can result in violent clashes between certain groups of society. In addition to the historical and contemporary experiences proving the extremely damaging effects of arousing hatred, it is necessary to consider the everyday threats that result from the unlimited expression of ideas and concepts liable to arouse hatred. Such expression prevents human communities from living in harmony with other groups. By intensifying emotional and social tensions within a smaller or bigger community, this can destroy ties within the society, reinforce extreme positions and increase prejudice and intolerance. All this results in a diminution of the chances of creating a tolerant and multicultural society which acknowledges pluralism, the right to be different and the equal dignity of all people, and in which discrimination is not regarded as a value. 2.     To afford constitutional protection to the incitement of hatred against certain groups under the guise of freedom of expression and of the press would present an irresolvable contradiction with the value system and political orientation expressed in the Constitution, that is, with the democratic rule of law, the equality of human beings, equal dignity, the prohibition of discrimination, freedom of religion and conscience and the protection of national and ethnic minorities, as recognised by the various Articles of the Constitution. ... Incitement to hatred is a negation of the above-mentioned notions, an emotional preparation for the use of violence. It is an abuse of freedom of expression, being an intolerant classification of a group characteristic of dictatorships rather than democracies. To tolerate the exercise of freedom of expression and of the press in a manner prohibited by Article 269 § 1 of the Criminal Code would contradict the requirements flowing from the democratic rule of law. ... As a summary of its position, the Constitutional Court points out that the restriction of freedom of expression and of the press is necessitated and justified by the negative historical experiences surrounding the arousal of hatred against certain groups of people, by the protection of constitutional values and by the obligation of the Republic of Hungary to comply with its commitments under international law. ...” 23.     Decision no. 14/2000 (V.12) AB of the Constitutional Court contains the following passages: “3.     The freedom to express one’s opinion is not only a subjective right but also a guarantee of the free expression of various views shaping public opinion. ... Although this right can be restricted, it enjoys special protection due to its primary role, and thus may be restricted only in relation to a few other rights. Therefore, secondary theoretical values such as public peace enjoy less protection than the right concerned. ... Like the right to life, the right to human dignity is eminently protected in the Constitution ... The Constitution is not value-neutral but has its own set of values. Expressing opinions inconsistent with constitutional values is not protected by Article   61 of the Constitution. ... The Constitutional Court points out that, also under the Convention, freedom of expression carries with it ‘duties and responsibilities’. All State authorities are obliged to protect the values of a democratic State under the rule of law and to respect the dignity of persons. Action must be taken against conduct representing force, hatred and conflict. Rejecting the use or threat of force as a means of solving conflicts is part of the complex concept of democracy.” 24.     Decision no. 18/2004 (V.25) AB of the Constitutional Court contains the following passage: “III. 2.1.     ... Even in the case of extreme opinions, it is not the content of the opinion but the direct and foreseeable consequences of its communication that justify a restriction on free expression and the application of legal measures under civil or, in some cases, criminal law.” 25.     Decision no. 95/2008 (VII.3) AB of the Constitutional Court contains the following passages: “III. 3.4.     ... The aim of the amendment [to the Criminal Code] is to punish hate speech and gestures even if the injured party cannot be identified. As a result, however, the amendment would punish not only conduct violating the honour and dignity of particular persons but all forms of hate speech, including racist statements containing generalisations, meaning that the ‘affected’ parties or the parties that consider themselves to be ‘affected’ are not forced to take part in or follow the exchange of communication between persons expressing hatred or to face hate thoughts in certain media outlets. ... Extremist voices are not suppressed in constitutional democracies simply on account of their content. In a democratic society such generalising, racist speech cannot change the fact that, from the State’s perspective, each citizen is equally valuable and has the same basic rights. In its present form, the amendment would also punish speeches containing only such generalisations. Participation in the communication by persons belonging to the group being attacked, that is, their listening to or being exposed in any way to the racist statements, is not a statutory element of the offence as defined in the amendment. However, these are precisely the cases in which the expression of an opinion may offend not only the sensitivity or sense of dignity of certain persons but also their constitutional rights. For example, if a perpetrator expresses his extremist political convictions in such a manner that a person belonging to the injured group is forced to listen to the communication in a state of intimidation, and is not in a position to avoid it [‘captive audience’] ... In this case, the right of the person concerned not to listen to or become aware of the distasteful or injurious opinion deserves protection. ... Persons belong not only to the community of citizens but also to a narrower group or community. An individual can, also by virtue of belonging to such a group, be exposed to an injury of such gravity and intensity that recourse to criminal-law sanctions may even be warranted to redress the issue.” III.     OBSERVATIONS of international Human rights monitoring bodies 26.     The Concluding Observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in respect of Hungary (adopted in Geneva, 11-29   October   2010) contain the following passage: “18.     The Committee is concerned at the virulent and widespread anti-Roma statements by ... members of the disbanded Magyar Gárda. ... Furthermore, it is concerned at indications of rising anti-Semitism in the State party. The Committee is concerned at the Constitutional Court’s restrictive interpretation of article 269 of the Penal Code on incitement to violence, which may be incompatible with the State party’s obligations under article 20 ...” 27.     The Fourth Report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Hungary, adopted on 20   June 2008, contains the following passages: “61.     ... [T]here has been a disturbing increase in racism and intolerance in public discourse in Hungary. In particular, the creation and rise of the radical right-wing Hungarian Guard ( Magyar Gárda ) ... is consistently cited as a cause for deep concern. Since its creation in August 2007 and the public swearing in of several hundred new members in October 2007, the Hungarian Guard has organised numerous public rallies throughout the country, including in villages with large Roma populations; despite apparently innocuous articles of association, amongst the group’s chief messages is the defence of ethnic Hungarians against so-called ‘Gipsy crime [1] ‘. Members of the Hungarian Guard parade in matching, paramilitary-style black boots and uniforms, with insignia and flags closely resembling the flag of the Arrow Cross Party, an openly Nazi organisation that briefly held power in Hungary during World War II, and during whose spell in power tens of thousands of Jews and Roma were killed or deported. ... 73.     ... Groups such as the Hungarian Guard also openly express antisemitic views, ... the expression of antisemitic views is currently on the rise in Hungary.” 28.     The Third Opinion on Hungary of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, adopted on 18 March 2010, contains the following passage: “75.     Since its creation in 2007, the Hungarian Guard (Magyar Gárda), has organised numerous public rallies throughout the country, including in villages with large Roma populations, during which members of the Hungarian Guard parade in matching, paramilitary-style black boots and uniforms, with Nazi insignia and flags. ... the Advisory Committee is concerned by this threatening behaviour. ...” IV.     COMPARATIVE LAW 29.     The German Federal Constitutional Court held, in its Stoppt den Synagogenbau! judgment of 23 June 2004 (BVerfGE, 111, 147 – Inhaltsbezogenes Versammlungsverbot ), that to avert danger to public order it was possible to restrict freedom of assembly if it was the Art und Weise , that is, the manner or means by which an assembly was conducted, and not the content, which gave rise to concerns. Accordingly, it was permissible to restrict “aggressive and provocative conduct by participants which intimidates citizens and through which demonstrators create a climate of violent demonstration and potential readiness for violence”. With regard to an extreme right-wing march staged on Holocaust Memorial Day, it held in addition that “the manner or means [by which an assembly is conducted] [may] give rise to provocation which significantly encroaches upon moral sensitivities [ sittliches Empfinden ]”. Regarding the way in which the assembly was conducted, the Federal Constitutional Court also attached importance to the provocative behaviour of the protestors. It added that the same applied “when a procession, on account of its overall character [ durch sein Gesamtgepräge ] identifies with the rites and symbols of the Nazi tyranny and intimidates other citizens by evoking the horrors of the past totalitarian and inhumane regime”. 30.     In the context of the dissolution of an association the German Federal Administrative Court, in judgment BVerwG 6 A 3.08 of 5 August 2009, summarised its case-law on the banning of associations as follows: “16.     Whether or not the purpose and activity of an association are punishable under criminal law will depend on the intentions and conduct of its members. An association as such cannot be criminally liable. Only natural persons are punishable under criminal law because criminality implies a capacity for criminal responsibility [ Schuldzurechnungsfähigkeit ], which only natural persons possess. As is clear from section 3(5) of the Association Act [ VereinsG ], it is nevertheless legally possible for an association to be criminally liable [ Strafgesetzwidrigkeit einer Vereinigung ] because the association can form, through its members and through its representing organs, a collective will which is detached from the individual members and which develops its own purpose [ Zweckrichtung ] and can act independently. If the criminal law is breached as a result of this own purpose or of the independent actions of an association, all the conditions for applying the prohibition [ Verbotstatbestand ] are fulfilled. A decisive factor in this context is that the members’ conduct can be attributed to the association. The character of the association must be shaped [ prägen ] by the criminal offences [ Strafgesetzwidrigkeit ] committed by its members. An association can strive concurrently for different aims; besides the legal aim laid down in its rules, it can also pursue criminal aims which it achieves through the conduct of its members. ... 17.     The prohibition of an association based on section 3(1), first sentence, first alternative, of the Associations Act read in conjunction with the first alternative of Article   9 § 2 of the Basic Law, is de iure independent of the criminal conviction of a member or an official of the association. It is within the competency of the authority issuing the prohibition order and the administrative court to examine whether there has been a breach of criminal law [ Gesetzeswidrigkeit ]. However, it is not the purpose of the prohibition [ Verbotstatbestand ] to impose an additional sanction on individuals who have already violated criminal provisions. Rather, the purpose [of the provision] is to deal with a particular threat to public safety and public order expressed in the founding or continuing existence of an organisation which is planning or committing criminal acts. Such organisations constitute a particular threat to interests [ Rechtsgüter ] protected by the criminal law. The organisation’s inherent momentum and its organised human and material resources facilitate and promote punishable acts. At the same time, the sense of responsibility of each member is often reduced, individual resistance to committing a criminal act is lessened, and the impetus to commit further criminal acts is created (judgment of 18 October 1988, op. cit., p.   307 and pp.   23-24 respectively; Löwer, in: v. Münch/Kunig, GG, Vol. 1, 5th ed. 2000, note 39 ad Article 9).” The German Federal Administrative Court has repeatedly upheld dissolution orders in respect of associations which supported (neo-)Nazi ideas. In its Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend judgment of 1 September 2010 (BVerwG 6 A 4.09), in which members of the association were propagating Nazi racial treatises and ideas, the Federal Administrative Court reiterated its relevant case-law, stating that in order to satisfy the conditions of the ban the association must have intended to realise its anti-constitutional aims in a militant or aggressive way, a condition which did not require the use of force or a specific violation of the law. It was sufficient, for the finding of an unconstitutional aim that justified the ban, for the programme, imagery and style to indicate an essential relationship with Nazism. The fact that an association aligned itself with the Nazi party (prohibited in Germany) or propagated a racial theory which was not in conformity with the constitutional prohibition of discrimination was sufficient to meet the conditions for banning the association. If an association attempted to hide its unconstitutional intentions, the conditions for the ban would become clear simply from the general picture formed by the individual statements and conduct. The fact that these elements might appear to be subordinate to a varying number of innocuous circumstances said nothing in itself about their significance. 31.     The Supreme Court of the United States considered the problem of intimidation in Virginia v. Black , 538 US 343 (2003). A Virginia statute makes it a felony “for any person ..., with the intent of intimidating any person or group ..., to burn a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place,” and specifies that “[a]ny such burning ... shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group.” The Supreme Court held that burning a cross in the United States was inextricably intertwined with the history of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan had often used cross burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence. To this day, regardless of whether the message was a political one or was also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross was a “symbol of hate.” While cross burning did not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intended that the recipients of the message should fear for their lives. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States permitted a State to ban “true threats”, which encompassed those statements where the speaker meant to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protected individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engendered, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence would occur. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word was a type of true threat, where a speaker directed a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. The First Amendment permitted Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate, because burning a cross was a particularly virulent form of intimidation. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 32.     The applicant complained that the dissolution of the Association which he chaired amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “ 1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” The Government contested that argument. A.     Admissibility 33.     In the Government’s view, the application should be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in the light of Article 17, because the Association provided an institutional framework for expressing racial hatred against Jewish and Roma citizens. They drew attention to the fact that international human rights monitoring bodies (such as the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), see paragraphs 26-28 above) had also raised concerns about the threatening effect of the uniform, insignia and flags used in the Movement’s demonstrations. 34.     The Government referred to the case-law of the Convention institutions, including the Court’s decision in Garaudy v. France ((dec.), no.   65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX). They pointed out that, where the right to freedom of expression had been relied on by applicants to justify the publication of texts that infringed the very spirit of the Convention and the essential values of democracy, the European Commission of Human Rights had had recourse to Article 17 of the Convention, either directly or indirectly, in rejecting their arguments and declaring their applications inadmissible (examples included Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. the   Netherlands , nos. 8348/78 and 8406/78, Commission decision of 11 October 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 18, p. 187, and Marais v. France , no. 31159/96, Commission decision of 24 June 1996, DR   86-B, p.   184). In the Government’s view, the Court had subsequently confirmed that approach (they referred to Lehideux and Isorni v. France , 23 September 1998, §§ 47 and 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII). Moreover, they pointed out that, in a case concerning Article 11 ( W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no.   42264/98, ECHR 2004-VII), the Court had observed that “the general purpose of Article 17 is to prevent totalitarian groups from exploiting in their own interests the principles enunciated by the Convention”. Similar conclusions had been reached in the cases of Norwood v.   the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI), and Witzsch v.   Germany ((dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005); the Government referred by contrast to Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, § 25, ECHR   2008). 35.     The applicant argued in reply that the activities of the Association did not constitute abuse of the right to freedom of expression and association, their objective having been the restoration of the rule of law by protecting citizens from criminals. The Association had not been involved in any activity aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. 36.     The Court observes at the outset that, unlike the cases cited by the Government involving the right to freedom of expression, the present application concerns the applicant’s right to freedom of association, and indeed a quite serious restriction on it, resulting in the termination of the Association’s legal existence as such. Therefore, the present application is to be distinguished from those relied on by the Government. In respect of the latter the Court observes that, particularly in Garaudy and in Lehideux and Isorni (both cited above), the justification of Nazi-like politics was at stake. Consequently, the finding of an abuse under Article 17 lay in the fact that Article 10 had been relied on by groups with totalitarian motives. 37.     In the instant case, however, it has not been argued by the Government that the applicant expressed contempt for the victims of a totalitarian regime (contrast Witzsch , cited above) or that he belonged to a group with totalitarian ambitions. Nor does the information contained in the case file support such a conclusion. The applicant was, at the material time, the chairman of a registered association. He complains about the dissolution of that association together with that of a movement which, in the domestic courts’ view, constituted an entity within that association, essentially on account of a demonstration which had not been declared unlawful at the domestic level and did not lead to any act of violence. In these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the Association’s activities were intended to justify or propagate an ideology of oppression serving “totalitarian groups”. 38.     Those activities, whose compatibility with Article 11 of the Convention will be the subject matter of a review on the merits (compare and contrast Féret v. Belgium , no. 15615/07, § 52, 16 July 2009), do not reveal prima facie any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention (see Sidiropoulos and Others v.   Greece , 10 July 1998, § 29, Reports 1998 ‑ IV) or any prima facie intention on the applicant’s part to publicly defend or disseminate propaganda in support of totalitarian views (see Vajnai , cited above, §§   24 ‑ 26). Only when the above-mentioned review is complete will the Court be in a position to decide, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether Article 17 of the Convention should be applied (see Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v.   Turkey [GC], nos.   41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, §   96, ECHR 2003 ‑ II). 39.     It follows that, for the Court, the application does not constitute an abuse of the right of petition for the purposes of Article 17 of the Convention. Therefore, it is not incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3. The Court further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     The Government 40.     The Government maintained that the Movement had not had a distinct legal status but had been a unit of the Association created, organised and financed by the latter. Its members had acted in the interests and under the guidance of the Association and paid their membership fees to it. The fact that the Association’s charter did not clarify its internal structure could not lead to the conclusion that the Movement had not been de jure part of the Association. However, even assuming that the Movement had been a distinct entity de jure , its de facto links to the Association justified the finding that the Association had overstepped its freedom of expression on account of the Movement’s operation. Therefore, the Association chaired by the applicant had not been dissolved because of the acts of a distinct entity but because of its own activities. 41.     Moreover, the Government were of the opinion that there had been no interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, since that freedom did not cover the right to associate in order to disseminate racist propaganda. However, even if there had been interference, it had been prescribed by law and served the legitimate aims of protecting public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 42.     Furthermore, the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, given the racist and anti-Semitic content of the demonstrations staged by the Movement and its paramilitary rituals, w