CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 avril 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   232 3.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KORETSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Koretskyy and Others v. Ukraine (application no.   40269/02).   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 Ukrainian authorities’ refusal to register the applicants’ association, the “Civic Committee for the Preservation of Wild (Indigenous) Natural Areas in Bereznyaky”.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   1,600, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Sergiy Petrovych Koretskyy, Andriy Vasylyovych Tolochko, Andriy Mykolayovych Gorbal, and Oleksiy Grygorovych Lobytskyy, are Ukrainian nationals born in 1955, 1975, 1978 and 1975, respectively. The applicants all live in Kyiv.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the authorities’ refusal to register their association.   In   July   2000 the applicants filed an application for the registration of their association, the “Civic Committee for the Preservation of Wild (Indigenous) Natural Areas in Bereznyaky” (“ Громадянський Комітет за збереження дикої (корінної) природи Березняків ).   The articles of association mentioned, in particular, that the Civic Committee was a voluntary association of citizens, non-governmental organisations, and other legal entities with the aim of preserving wild (indigenous) natural systems in Ukrainian cities and towns and, particularly, in the indigenous natural areas of Bereznyaky, a district of Kyiv.   On 18 September   2000, the Kyiv City Department of Justice informed the applicants that, under the Associations of Citizens Act, it refused to register their association on the ground that its articles had not been drafted in accordance with domestic law. It submitted, in   particular, that in those articles: the association’s status was not indicated; the provision that the association could have branches in other cities and towns did not correspond to the provision that its activities were to be carried out specifically in Bereznyaky, Kyiv; and, the Executive Board was entrusted with financial activities. The City Department further noted that the applicants had not taken into account some changes and amendments to the text which had been proposed by the authorities.   In   November   2000 the applicants lodged a complaint against the City Department’s decision, in which they alleged that their right to form an association and to freely choose its aims and areas of activities had been breached. Their complaint was ultimately rejected in August   2001, as the local courts held that the refusal to register the association had been lawful.   In July   2002 the applicants decided to liquidate the association and discontinue its activities.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12   September 2002.   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), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   Relying on Article   11, the applicants complained about the refusal of the Ukrainian authorities to register their association.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court noted that the Ukrainian Government’s main argument, as regards the necessity of the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association, was that the State enjoyed the exclusive right to regulate independently the activities of non-governmental organisations on its territory.   However, the Court observed that the local courts’ decisions and the Government’s submissions had contained neither an explanation nor even an indication of the necessity for restrictions on associations distributing propaganda, lobbying authorities with their ideas and aims, involving volunteers as members or independently carrying out publishing activities. Furthermore, the Court did not see why the managing bodies of such associations had been prohibited from carrying out everyday administrative activities, even if such activities had been essentially financial.   The Court also found that the provisions of the Associations of Citizens Act, which regulated the registration of associations, had been too vague to be sufficiently “foreseeable” and had granted an excessively wide margin of discretion to the authorities to decide whether a particular association could be registered. In such a situation, the judicial review procedure available to the applicants could not prevent arbitrary refusals of registration.   The Court further considered that the fact that the association’s aims had included branches in Ukrainian cities and towns other than Kyiv had not threatened the system of State registration of associations. It observed that such associations wishing to have an impact in Ukraine’s 25 regions had no choice but to set up local branches.   Moreover, the case file showed that the association had purely intended to pursue peaceful and democratic aims and tasks. Nevertheless, the authorities had applied a radical measure which had gone so far as to prevent it from even starting its main activities.   The Court therefore concluded that the Ukrainian authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for their refusal to register the applicants’ association and that that refusal had not pursued a “pressing social need”, in violation of 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.