CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 juillet 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. July 1998 Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece - 26695/95 Judgment 10.7.1998 Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Refusal of courts to register an association suspected of undermining the country’s territorial integrity: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies Notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 can also be considered in the light of Articles 9 and 10. Applicants’ complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention also went to the very substance of Article 11 – applicants had relied on grounds of equivalent effect within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 identical with those raised under Article 11. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Abuse of right of individual petition There was nothing in the relevant association’s memorandum of association to warrant the conclusion that the association had relied on the Convention to engage in activity or perform acts aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in it. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Whether there had been an interference Interference with exercise of right to freedom of association: Greek courts’ refusal to register applicants’ association had deprived applicants of any possibility of jointly or individually pursuing the aims they had laid down in the memorandum of association and thus of exercising the right in question. B.   Justification for the interference 1.   “Prescribed by law” Articles 79 to 81 of the Civil Code allowed courts to refuse an application to register an association where they found that the validity of its memorandum of association was open to question. 2.   Legitimate aim Protection of national security and prevention of disorder. 3.   “Necessary in a democratic society” That citizens should be able to form a legal entity in order to act collectively in a field of mutual interest was one of the most important aspects of the right to freedom of association – way in which national legislation enshrined that freedom and its practical application by the authorities revealed state of democracy in the country concerned. Aims of association set out in its memorandum of association had been exclusively to preserve and develop traditions and folk culture of Florina region – perfectly clear and legitimate. Relevant press articles had reported matters some of which were unconnected with applicants and drawn inferences derived from a subjective assessment by authors of the articles – courts had taken those articles into consideration and also the political dispute that then dominated relations between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and had held that the applicants and their association represented a danger to Greece’s territorial integrity – statement based on a mere suspicion as to true intentions of association’s founders. Greek law did not lay down a system of preventive review for setting up non-profit-making associations – Article 105 of the Civil Code empowered courts to order that the association should be dissolved if after its registration it pursued an aim different from the one laid down in its memorandum of association. Refusal to register association disproportionate to objectives pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints largely the same as those raised under Article 11. Conclusion : unnecessary to rule on complaint (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLES 9, 10 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION Complaint related to same facts as ones based on Article 11. Conclusion : unnecessary to rule on complaint (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated by finding of violation. B.   Costs and expenses: assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay the applicants specified sum for costs and expenses (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