CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 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 } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 }   739 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v.   Azerbaijan (application no. 37083/03 )   UNJUSTIFIED DISSOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION   Violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the first applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicants are Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti, a non-profit non-governmental organisation, and an Azerbaijani national, Sabir Israfilov. The organisation is an association registered in Baku which was active in the environmental field between 1995 and 2002. Mr Israfilov, the organisation’s former Chairman, was born in 1948 and lives in Baku.   The Association was registered by the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) in   August 1995. About two years later, it received a letter from the Ministry stating that it had committed certain breaches of domestic law and its own charter. In August 2002, the Ministry started an inspection into the Association’s activities, which culminated in three warnings it issued between September and October 2002. The warnings concerned the Association’s failure to hold annual general assemblies as required by law and its attempts to carry out unlawful environmental inspections into State and private commercial companies and to collect membership fees from those. Upon an application by the Ministry the domestic court ordered the Association’s dissolution in March 2003. Following its unsuccessful appeals the Association was dissolved.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   11 (freedom of association and assembly), the applicants complained that their association was dissolved arbitrarily by the authorities in 2003.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), judges , and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the Association had not called a general assembly for around seven years, neither had it brought its own charter into conformity with domestic legislation as regards the frequency of convening general assemblies. Consequently, the Court found that the Azeri authorities, by issuing the first initial warning, had reacted correctly vis-à-vis the Association in order to ensure its compliance with domestic law.   That said, the Ministry had issued, in a very short period of time, two additional warnings to the Association despite being informed that a general assembly had been held in August 2002. The warnings had only given the Association a ten-day deadline to remedy the situation. Given that organising a general assembly required at least two weeks according to domestic law, the ten-day deadline had been insufficient to eliminate the said breaches of the law. The Court further noted that the immediate outright dissolution of an association had been the only available sanction under domestic law for any type of an association’s misconduct. This was, however, a disproportionate measure in situations, like the present one, of mere failure to comply with certain internal management rules. Consequently less strict measures had to be considered by the authorities.   The content of the accusations against the Association had subsequently changed when it had been accused of attempting to collect money in the guise of membership fees. These allegations had been extremely vague, briefly worded and offered no detail of the purported illegal activities. While, if proven, they would have entailed criminal responsibility for the Association’s managers, no criminal proceedings had ever been instituted. Further, no evidence had ever been adduced as to when or where the alleged unlawful activities had taken place or who exactly had been involved.   Finally, when deciding on all allegations in respect of the Association, the domestic courts had accepted the findings of the officials of the Ministry of Justice at their face value without an independent judicial inquiry. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that the Association’s unlawful action had not been proven and the domestic courts’ decision to dissolve it had been arbitrary, in 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 Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70), or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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.