CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 décembre 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 37 December 2001 Gorzelik and Others v. Poland - 44158/98 Judgment 20.12.2001 [Section IV] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Refusal to register Silesian association: no violation Facts : The applicants, along with a number of other people, formed an association – the Union of People of Silesian Nationality – whose principal aims were awaken and strengthen the national consciousness of Silesians and to restore Silesian culture. The applicants lodged an application with the Regional Court for registration of the association. The local governor objected to registration, contending in particular that there was no distinct Silesian nationality and that recognition of a Silesian national minority would confer certain rights and privileges, including a privileged position in respect of the distribution of seats in Parliament. He proposed that the association’s name should be changed and that its memorandum of association should be amended to omit the reference to the association as “an organisation of the Silesian national minority”. The Regional Court granted the application for registration but on the governor’s appeal the Court of Appeal set aside the Regional Court’s decision and dismissed the application for registration. The Court of Appeal held that the Silesian ethnic group was not a national minority and that the application was aimed at circumventing those statutes which conferred privileges on national minorities. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeal. Law : Article 11 – The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others. As to the necessity of the interference, it was not the Court’s task to express an opinion on whether or not the Silesians are a “national minority”, a notion that is not defined in international treaties, including the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. At the material time, Polish law did not define “national minority” either, and although electoral law conferred certain privileges on such minorities, there was no legal procedure whereby a national or other minority could seek recognition. Consequently, groups not recognised as national minorities could only obtain indirect recognition through the procedure for registration of associations. However, while that lacuna left a degree of uncertainty for individuals and a degree of latitude for the authorities, it did not in itself have consequences for the applicants’ rights under Article 11. The central issue lay in a different aspect of the case, namely the assessment of whether the applicants would have been denied the opportunity of forming an association for the purposes listed in the memorandum of association had they been prepared to compromise on points which were particularly sensitive for the State. The authorities’ concern did not seem to lack a reasonable basis, the three crucial words in the description in the memorandum of association – “organisation”, “national” and “minority” – being precisely those found in the relevant provision of the electoral law. This, together with the name of the association, gave the impression that the members of the association might aspire to stand in elections. The applicants could easily have dispelled the doubts by changing the name slightly and by sacrificing or amending a single provision of the memorandum of association, without any adverse consequences for the existence of the association or its objectives. Individuals and groups of individuals must sometimes be prepared to limit some of their freedoms so as to ensure the greater stability of the country as a whole, particularly as regards   the electoral system. In the circumstances of the case, it was reasonable for the authorities to act as they did in order to protect the electoral system of the State, a system which is an indispensable element of the proper functioning of a democratic society. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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