CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 avril 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 107 April 2008 Koretskyy and Others v. Ukraine - 40269/02 Judgment 3.4.2008 [Section V] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Freedom of peaceful assembly Refusal to register a non-governmental association based on a broad interpretation of vague legal provisions: violation   Facts : The applicants founded a local environmental association. Its registration was refused on the ground that its articles had not been drafted in accordance with domestic law. The authorities asserted, in particular, that an association with local status could not have representative offices or representatives in other cities and towns; that the managing board of an association was not entitled to exercise everyday administrative functions; that an association could not carry out publishing activities on its own, publicise its activities, lobby the authorities about environmental protection, or carry out expert examinations in this field; and, finally, that the association could not engage volunteers as members of the association. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged that decision before the courts. Law : Article 11 – The refusal to give the association the status of a legal entity had amounted to an interference by the authorities with the applicants’ exercise of their right to freedom of association. The provisions of the Associations of Citizens Act, which regulated the registration of associations, were too vague to be sufficiently “foreseeable” and granted an excessively wide margin of discretion to the authorities to decide whether a particular association could be registered. In particular, the registration of an association could be refused if its articles of association or other documents submitted for the registration contravened the Ukrainian law. The Act did not specify whether that provision referred only to the substantive incompatibility of the aim and activities of the association with the requirements of the law or also to their textual incompatibility with the relevant legal provisions. Given the changes to the text of the association’s articles on which the authorities had been insisting, the provision at issue allowed of a particularly broad interpretation and could be read as prohibiting any departure from the relevant domestic regulations on associations’ activities. In such a situation, the judicial review procedure available to the applicants could not prevent arbitrary refusals of registration. The local courts’ decision and the government’s submissions contained neither an explanation nor even an indication of the necessity for restrictions on associations distributing publicity materials, lobbying authorities, engaging volunteers as members or independently carrying out publishing activities. Moreover, the Court did not see why the managing bodies of such association were prohibited from carrying out everyday administrative activities, even if such activities had been essentially financial. As regards the territorial limitation on the activities of associations with local status, even if that restriction could be said to be aimed at maintaining the proper functioning of the system of State registration of associations, the Court did not discern any threat through local associations in having branch offices in other cities and towns, especially given the burdensome requirement for associations wishing to have pan-Ukrainian status to set up local branches in the majority of the twenty-five regions of Ukraine. Moreover, the association had intended to pursue purely peaceful and democratic aims and tasks. Nevertheless, the authorities had applied a radical measure which had gone so far as to prevent it from even starting its main activities, without giving relevant and sufficient reasons. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 1,500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes