CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 décembre 2006

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   764 7.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LINKOV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Linkov v. the Czech Republic (application no. 10504/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the refusal to register the political party Liberální Strana (Liberal Party).   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and, under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, awarded him 150 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vaclav Linkov, is a Czech national who was born in 1979 and lives in Brno (Czech Republic).   In July 2000 Liberální Strana’s preparatory committee, of which the applicant was a member, applied to the Ministry of the Interior to register it as a political party.   The Ministry refused the application in August 2001 on the ground that the party’s constitution was in breach of the Political Parties Act (Law no. 424/1991), taken together with the Czech Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. It considered, in particular, that the party’s goal of “breaking the legal continuity with totalitarian regimes” was unconstitutional.   On an appeal by the preparatory committee, the Supreme Court upheld the Ministry’s decision to refuse to register the party and fully endorsed its opinion concerning the political goal of “breaking the legal continuity with totalitarian regimes”, finding that such a goal was designed to destroy the democratic foundations of the State.   Furthermore, on 6 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared an appeal by the applicant and the preparatory committee manifestly ill-founded on the ground that the decisions appealed against had not infringed their constitutional rights.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 March 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Mark Villiger (Swiss [2] ), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that the refusal of the authorities to register the party had infringed his right to freedom of association as guaranteed by Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), he further complained that, as the party had not been registered, he had been unable to stand for election on its behalf or to vote for its candidates.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court considered that the refusal to register Liberální Strana had constituted interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of association. The interference had been prescribed by the Political Parties Act and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and had pursued a legitimate aim for the purposes of the Convention.   As to whether the interference could be regarded as having met a pressing social need, the Court observed that Liberální Strana’s constitution had advocated a policy of “breaking the legal continuity with totalitarian regimes”. In the applicant’s view, that goal could have been achieved by ending the “impunity of certain offences” committed by representatives of the communist regime, an activity that would not have breached the Czech Constitution.   In its assessment, the Court considered it necessary to take into account the historical and political background to the applicant’s case. In that connection, it observed in particular that, since the change of regime in 1989, the Czech parliament had passed two laws declaring that the communist regime had consistently and systematically breached human rights, the fundamental principles of a democratic State, international treaties and its own laws, and that it had pursued its ends by committing offences and persecuting citizens. In addition, Law no.   198/1993 did not provide for a limitation period for offences that had remained unpunished for political reasons between 25 February 1948 and 29 December 1989. In view of the age of the perpetrators, that amounted to excluding the application of the statute of limitations to such offences – the goal for which Liberální Strana had intended to campaign.   The Court considered that there was no evidence that Liberální Strana had not sought to pursue its aims by lawful and democratic means, or that its proposed change of the law had been incompatible with fundamental democratic principles, especially as the party’s registration had been refused before it had even had time to carry out any activities. The Court reiterated in that connection that the refusal to register a party was a drastic measure that could be applied only in the most serious cases.   As Liberální Strana had not advocated any policy that could have undermined the democratic regime in the country and had not urged or sought to justify the use of force for political ends, the refusal to register it had not been necessary in a democratic society. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Articles 6, 10 and 13 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Having regard to the conclusion it had reached under Article 11, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6, 10 and 13 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts 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)   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.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.