CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 novembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   639 24.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 46336/99).   The Court held: by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court decided, unanimously, to strike out the case insofar as it concerned Dimcho Hristov (now deceased). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the remaining applicants 2,000   euros (EUR), jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Kiril Ivanov, Vladimir Kotzelov, Dimcho Hristov and Angel Sharov, are Bulgarian nationals of Macedonian ethnic origin, who were born in 1942, 1939, 1955 and 1934 respectively and live or lived in Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria).   They were all members of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN (“UMO Ilinden – PIRIN”).   UMO Ilinden – PIRIN (which later obtained registration as a political party before being declared unconstitutional and dissolved [1] ) apparently had close links with the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, an association based in south ‑ west Bulgaria, that attempted to organise commemorative events at various sites in Pirin Macedonia, which, with minor exceptions, were systematically banned by the Bulgarian authorities between 1994-2003 [2] .   On 3 August 1998 and 1 September 1998 respectively, Mr Kotzelov and Mr Ivanov, acting for UMO Ilinden – PIRIN, informed the mayor of Sofia that peaceful rallies were planned for 10 August 1998 (the anniversary of the 1913 Bucharest Treaty) and 12 September 1998 in commemoration of the “genocide against the Macedonians”. The mayor issued orders prohibiting both rallies, under section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act, on the ground that the events would “create conditions for breaches of public order”.   Apparently no appeal was made against the order concerning the rally planned for 10 August 1998. However, Mr Ivanov appealed against the banning of the rally planned for 12 September 1998.   On 8 September 1998 Sofia District Court ruled in private that it had no jurisdiction to examine the appeal. It held that an appeal against the mayor’s order had to be brought first before the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, as provided in section 12(4) of the Meetings and Marches Act. The court discontinued the judicial proceedings and sent the appeal to the Municipal Council (which it considered to be the successor to the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, which had ceased to exist).   Mr Ivanov appealed unsuccessfully against the ruling of 8 September. Among other things, he complained that, as the Municipal Council met only rarely, the appeal was not heard in time to allow the planned rally to take place.     The Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed his final appeal, although it did not support Sofia City Court’s reasoning.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 January 1999 and declared admissible on 9 September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that the bans on two planned rallies were not imposed in accordance with the law and had not been necessary in a democratic society, in violation of Article 11. They further alleged that the courts had improperly refused to examine the appeal against the second ban and thus denied them an effective remedy, in breach of Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 The Court found that the Bulgarian authorities interfered with the applicants’ freedom of assembly in banning the events in question.   The bans were prescribed by law (the Meetings and Marchers Act). Concerning the aim and necessity of the interferences, however, the Court noted that both mayoral bans only made brief references to an alleged threat to public order, without stating the basis for such a conclusion or going into detail. Even assuming that the aims pursued were public safety and the prevention of disorder, it could hardly be concluded that the authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasoning and that the bans were thus necessary in a democratic society. The Bulgarian Government merely stated that the authorities had acted in conformity with national law and that their actions had not been arbitrary.   Even if it were not unreasonable for the authorities to suspect that certain leaders of UMO Ilinden – PIRIN (which was later declared unconstitutional), or small groups which had developed from it, harboured separatist views and had a political agenda that included the notion of autonomy for the region of Pirin Macedonia or even secession from Bulgaria and could hence expect that separatist slogans would be broadcast by some participants during the planned rallies, such a probability could not per se justify the bans.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 11   Article 13 The Court observed that there was nothing in domestic law to indicate that an appeal could be brought before the Municipal Council. The possibility to appeal to a nonexistent body, the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, did not constitute an effective remedy either.   The remedy provided by section 12(6) of the Meetings and Marches Act (the possibility to seek judicial review of the mayoral ban from the competent district court) could in principle operate effectively. However, it was rendered ineffective in the applicants’ case through the   court rulings that the judicial authorities would have jurisdiction to examine an appeal against a mayoral ban only after the Executive Committee of the People’s Council had already dismissed it.   Although the Supreme Court of Cassation eventually stated that it did not share that position, but its decision was delivered approximately four-and-a-half years after the planned event was due to take place. Likewise, bearing in mind that the timing of the rallies was crucial for the organisers and participants and that the organisers gave timely notices to the competent authorities, the Court considered that, in the circumstances, the notion of an effective remedy implied the possibility to obtain a ruling before the time of the planned events. However, that did not happen in the applicants’ case.   As it did not seem that any other remedies were available, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 14 The Court held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to rule on the allegation of a violation of Article 14. Judges Botoucharova and Hajiyev expressed a joint partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] See the Court’s judgment The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v.   Bulgaria (no. 59489/00). [2] See the Court’s judgments: Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v.   Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 & 29225/95) and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44079/98).   [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.