CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     726 06.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Özbek and Others v. Turkey (application no. 35570/02 )   REFUSAL TO REGISTER A RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION   Violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 2,000   euros   (EUR) to the founding members of the association concerned in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,200 jointly to all the applicants for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicants are 16 Turkish nationals. On 20 December 2000 they decided to set up a public-benefit foundation, which they called Kurtuluş Kiliseleri Vakfı (the Foundation of Liberation Churches), to be based in Ankara. The following day they applied to the Ankara Court of First Instance to register the foundation, as required under the Civil Code. The Directorate General of Foundations, to whom the matter was referred for an opinion, opposed the registration on the grounds that, according to the foundation’s constitution, its principal aim was to serve the interests of the Protestant community, which was not compatible with an Article of the Civil Code under which supporting a specific community was not allowed. On 12 July 2001 and 22 November 2002 respectively, the first-instance court and the Court of Cassation pronounced decisions in keeping with that opinion.   On 22 January 2002 the applicants asked the Court of Cassation to review its decision, submitting that it had misinterpreted the foundation’s constitution, which was poorly worded and did not reflect the true intention of the founding members, which was in fact to provide support to people in need and to victims of natural disasters, regardless of their beliefs or religion. They added that if the Court of Cassation changed its judgment they would amend the constitution to reflect the real intentions of the founding members. On 14 February 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected their request.   In 2004 some of the applicants formed an association with aims similar to those of the foundation, but with no reference to supporting any particular community.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants complained mainly that the refusal to register their foundation was in violation of their right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 August 2002 and declared partly admissible on 11 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court pointed out that the ability to establish a legal entity in order to act collectively in a field of mutual interest was one of the most important aspects of freedom of association.   The applicants had been willing to amend the constitution of their foundation both to reflect their true aims and to comply with the legal requirements for registration. However, by not allowing them time to do this – something it had done in a similar case – the Court of Cassation had prevented them from setting up a foundation that would have had legal status.   The Court further noted that depositing a new constitution for a new foundation would have been more expensive than before. In addition, the fact that some of the applicants had subsequently been able to register an association did not prevent the would-be founders from complaining about the authorities’ refusal – which had not been acknowledged or remedied at the national level – to register their foundation.   The Court therefore held unanimously that the refusal to register the foundation, although permitted under Turkish law, had not been necessary in a democratic society, and that there had been a violation of Article 11.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.