CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 mars 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 } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   215 27.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS EMIN AND OTHERS v. GREECE TOURKIKI ENOSI XANTHIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Emin and Others v. Greece (application no. 34144/05) and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece (no. 26698/05).   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 in both cases, which concern associations founded by persons belonging to the Muslim minority of Western Thrace (Greece).   In the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants in the case of Emin and Others . In the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others the Court awarded the association Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Both cases concern complaints by the applicants about decisions taken by the Greek courts against associations founded by persons belonging to the Muslim minority of Western Thrace (Greece).   Emin and Others The seven applicants, Houlia Emin, Aisse Galip, Feriste Devetzioglou, Mediha Bekiroglou, Aisse Molla Ismail, Eminet Mehmet Ahmet and Gioulsen Memet, are Greek nationals living in Rodopi (Greece).   In March 2001 they and other women from the region founded the “Cultural   Association of Turkish Women of the Region of Rodopi”. According to the statute of the Association, its aim was to create a “meeting place   for women of the county of Rodopi” and to work for “social, moral and spiritual exaltation and establish bonds of sisterhood between its members”.   On 6 June 2001 the Greek courts dismissed a request for registration of the association on the ground that its title might mislead the public regarding the origin of its members. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision in January 2003, reiterating that by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne only a Muslim minority – and not a Turkish minority – had been recognised in the region of Western Thrace. The Court of Appeal held that the title of the association, combined with the terms of its statute, was contrary to public policy. An appeal on points of law by the applicants was dismissed in April 2005.   Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others   The applicants are two associations, Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and “Academic Graduates’ Circle of the minority in Western Thrace”, and eight Greek nationals: Galip Galip, Ahmet Mehmet, Orhan Hatziibraim, Ahmet Faikoglou, Birol Akifoglou, Loutfie Nihatoglou, Hiousniou Serdarzade, Rassim Hint.   The first applicant association,   Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis, was founded in 1927 under the name “House of the Turkish Youth of Xanthi”. According to the statute of the association, its purpose was to preserve and promote the culture of the “Turks of Western Thrace” and to create bonds of friendship and solidarity between them.   In 1936 the applicant association successfully sought to change its name to “Turkish Association of Xanthi”. In November 1983, however, a decision was issued prohibiting it from using the term “Turkish” on any document, stamp or sign.   On 11 March 1986 the Greek courts ordered the dissolution of the association on the ground that its statute ran counter to public policy. The Thrace Court of Appeal upheld that judgment on 25 January 2002. It found that the applicant association was not in conformity with the Treaty of Lausanne and that some of the members presented the Muslim minority of Thrace as a “strongly oppressed minority”. The court referred, among other things, to the president of the association’s participation in conferences organised by the Turkish authorities and the publication of a letter in a Turkish daily referring to the “Turks of Western Thrace”. In April 2002 the first applicant association appealed on points of law and subsequently the nine other applicants also intervened in the proceedings in support of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis. The appeal was finally dismissed in February 2005.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application in the case of Emin and Others was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 September 2005 and in the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others on 15 July 2005.   Judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatian), President , Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , Petros Pararas (Greek) , ad hoc judge , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants in the case of Emin and Others complained of the Greek courts’ refusal to register their association and the applicants in the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others of the court-ordered dissolution of the association Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis. In the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others the applicants also complained, under Article 6 § 1,   of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Decision of the Court   In respect of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others , the Court declared the complaints based on Articles 11 and 14 admissible only regarding the association Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and the following applicants: Orhan Hatziibraim, Ahmet Faikoglou, Birol Akifoglou, Loutfie Nihatoglou, Hiousniou Serdarzade, Rassim Hint. It declared the complaint based on Article 6 § 1 admissible only in respect of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis.       Article 11   Emin and Others Whilst reiterating that the taking of evidence was governed primarily by the rules of domestic law and that it was in principle for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, the Court was not satisfied that the Greek courts had based their finding that the association constituted a danger to public policy on the title “Cultural Association of Turkish Women of the Region of Rodopi” alone. It observed that it had not been possible to verify the intentions of the applicants in practice as the association had never been registered.   The Court observed that even supposing that the real aim of the association had been to promote the idea that there was an ethnic minority in Greece, this could not be said to constitute a threat to democratic society. There was nothing in the statute to indicate that its members advocated the use of violence or of undemocratic or unconstitutional means. The Court noted further that the Greek courts would have had the power to dissolve the association if in practice it pursued aims that were different from those stated in its statute or if it operated in a manner contrary to the law. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11.     Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others The Court referred at the outset to the radical nature of the measure dissolving the applicant association. It noted that the association had pursued its activities unhindered for nearly half a century. Furthermore, the Greek courts had not identified any element in the title or statute of the association that might be contrary to public policy.   The Court observed that even supposing that the real aim of the applicant association had been to promote the idea that there was an ethnic minority in Greece, this could not be said to constitute a threat to democratic society. It reiterated that the existence of minorities and different cultures in a country was a historical fact that a democratic society had to tolerate and even protect and support according to the principles of international law.   The Court also considered that it could not be inferred from the factors relied on by the Thrace Court of Appeal that the applicant association had engaged in activities contrary to its proclaimed objectives. Moreover, there was no evidence that the president or members of the association had ever called for the use of violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. The Court considered that freedom of association involved the right of everyone to express, in a lawful context, their beliefs about their ethnic identity. However shocking and unacceptable certain views or words used might appear to the authorities, their dissemination should not automatically be regarded as a threat to public policy or to the territorial integrity of a country. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11   In both cases the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints based on Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 11.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that, in respect of the applicant association Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis, the proceedings in question had lasted more than 21 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   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) 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.