CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 2007

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   229 12.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ZELENI BALKANI v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Zeleni Balkani v. Bulgaria (application no. 63778/00).   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; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant organisation 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Zeleni Balkani, is a Bulgarian non-profit-making environmental protection organisation founded in 2000 and based in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   On an unspecified date Plovdiv Municipality (the municipality) started clearing the banks and the riverbed of the river “Maritza”, which runs through the city. The procedure involved the uprooting and eradication of trees and plant life, which were blocking the flow of the river.   The applicant organisation believed that the actions of the municipality were in violation of domestic environmental protection legislation and that the disorderly uprooting and eradication of the trees and the plant life would disrupt the biological balance of the river.   On 18 April 2000 the applicant organisation informed the municipality of its intention to hold a public rally the following day, the 19th, in front of the municipality. The aim of the rally was to protest against the municipality's actions and to demand that the disorderly uprooting and eradication of the river's plant life be stopped because it was destroying important alluvial trees and the habitat of rare, endangered birds.   In a letter of 19 April 2000 – signed by the secretary of the municipality – the applicant organisation was informed that the municipality would not permit the rally to go ahead as planned. Later that day police officers visited the offices of the applicant organisation and obtained signed declarations from its leaders that they were aware of the prohibition and would not organise the rally as planned.   The applicant organisation did not hold a rally on 19 April 2000 and the clearing of the banks and the riverbed of the river “Maritza” continued unabated.   On 26 April 2000 the applicant organisation appealed against the municipality's prohibition. The appeal was filed with the municipality which did not forward it, as required under the applicable legislation, to the domestic courts together with all relevant documents.   On 7 June 2000 the applicant organisation re-filed its appeal with Plovdiv Regional Court.   On 21 June 2000 Plovdiv Regional Court requested the municipality to provide it with its file and all other relevant documents regarding the public rally planned by the applicant organisation.   The municipality sent the requested documents to Plovdiv Regional Court on 22 June 2000, with the exception of the applicant organisation's appeal of 26 April 2000, which it did not send until 25 October 2000.   On 28 March 2001 Plovdiv Regional Court declared null and void the municipality's prohibition of the public rally, as it had been issued in violation of the provisions of the 1990 Meetings and Marches Act, as it had been decided not by the mayor but by the secretary of the municipality. Furthermore, it lacked reference to any of the statutory grounds for issuing such prohibitions.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 August 2000. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .             3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 11 and 13, the applicant organisation complained about the prohibition of its public rally planned for 19 April 2000.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court observed that Plovdiv Regional Court established that the municipality's prohibition of the applicant organisation's public rally was issued in violation of the Meetings and Marches Act. Accordingly, the said prohibition represented an interference with the exercise of the applicant organisation's right to freedom of peaceful assembly which was not “prescribed by law”. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Article 13   The Court noted that the applicant organisation had a procedure available under the Meetings and Marches Act which provided for a juridical review, within five days, of the municipality's prohibition of its public rally. The applicant organisation had made use of that procedure and appealed against the said prohibition on 26 April 2000. However, the domestic court failed to examine the applicant organisation's appeal within the prescribed five-day deadline. In fact, it delivered its judgment and declared the municipality's prohibition null and void ten months later. In so far as its conclusion in respect of the lawfulness of the prohibition rested solely on the question of whether the mayor or the secretary of the municipality could issue such a prohibition, the Court did not find it justified that the domestic proceedings took such a period to conclude. The Court did recognise that the municipality and the applicant organisation contributed to some extent to part of the delay in the proceedings. However, that did not excuse the lack of expedition on the part of the domestic court once the case file was fully compiled on 25 October 2000.   The applicant organisation’s use of the appeal procedure under the Meetings and Marches Act was not effective as it resulted in the domestic court declaring the municipality's prohibition as null and void almost a year after the planned event when the need for such a rally no longer existed.   In respect of the possibility for the applicant organisation to seek redress for the unlawful actions of the municipality, the Court observed that it did not have such a right under the State Responsibility for Damage Act. The Court was also unconvinced by the Government's argument that the applicant organisation could have filed a tort action for damage.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 11.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.