CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 décembre 2006

.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. 92 December 2006 Kalifatstaat v. Germany (dec.) - 13828/04 Decision 11.12.2006 [Section V] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Ban on an association whose object was the restoration of the caliphate and the creation of an Islamic state founded on Sharia Law: inadmissible   The aim of the applicant association was the restoration of the caliphate and the creation of an Islamic State founded on sharia law. An appeal court sentenced its leader, who had been declared caliph, to a four-year term of imprisonment for having twice called for the murder of his political rival, who had also declared himself caliph. Subsequently, the former section 2(2), point 3 of the Associations Act, which had stipulated that religious communities were not associations, implying that they could not be prohibited under the terms of that Act, was repealed. The Federal Interior Ministry issued an order banning the association on the grounds that it was hostile to the constitutional order and to the idea of international understanding, and that it represented a threat to national security and other interests of the State, in particular its relations with Turkey. The association considered democracy to be harmful and incompatible with Islam, and had openly advocated the use of violence in order to achieve its goals. The Federal Interior Ministry also ordered the attachment of the association’s property. The applicant association appealed against this order to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal. The association then lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing in particular that the repeal of section 2(2) of the Associations Act had been a retrospective measure which infringed its right to freedom of religion. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the complaint. Inadmissible : The banning of the applicant association amounted to interference with the exercise of its right to freedom of association. As to the lawfulness of the interference, the measure complained of had been based on domestic legislation which satisfied the requirements of clarity, accessibility and foreseeability. The measure had not been taken retrospectively, as the Associations Act had been amended before publication of the order in question. As to the aims pursued, the ban had pursued a number of legitimate aims under Article 11, in particular the interests of national security and public safety, the prevention of disorder and/or the prevention of crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Finally, as to whether the interference had been proportionate, the courts had subjected the reasons given for banning the applicant association to detailed and rigorous scrutiny. The applicant association had acknowledged seeking to establish a worldwide Islamic regime based on sharia law which was incompatible with the fundamental democratic principles articulated in the Convention. The statements and conduct of the members of the association, and in particular of its leader, had been attributable to the association and had demonstrated that the latter did not rule out the use of force in order to attain its objectives. In the Court’s view, it had been established convincingly that less stringent measures would not have sufficed to contain the real threat posed by the applicant to the State political system of the Federal Republic of Germany. Having regard to all these considerations, and taking the view that the aims of the applicant association had been contrary to the idea of a “democratic society”, the Court found that the penalty imposed on the applicant had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued: manifestly ill‑founded .   © 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