CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sCE52BCAA { width:20.95pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     381   18.7.2002     Press release issued by the Registrar   GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND REFERRED TO GRAND CHAMBER     The case Gorzelik and Others v. Poland (application no. 44158/98) has been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In its Chamber judgment of 20 December 2001 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 11 (right to association) in the case.   Summary of the facts The applicants, all Polish nationals, are Silesians from Upper Silesia. They are: Jerzy Gorzelik, born in 1971, who is a university teacher residing in Katowice; Rudolf Kołodziejczyk, born in 1940, who is an economist residing in Rybnik; and Erwin Sowa, born in 1944, who is a steelworker residing in Katowice.   The case concerns an attempt by the applicants and 190 others to form an association called the “Union of People of Silesian Nationality” ( Związek Ludności Narodowości Śląskiej ). The Polish authorities refused to register the association on the ground that both the intended name and certain provisions of the union’s memorandum of association, which characterised Silesians as a “national minority”, implied that their real intention was to circumvent the provisions of the electoral law. Also, had the members of the Union been recognised as a “national minority”, they would automatically have gained unqualified and legally enforceable privileges.   Complaint The applicants complain that the decision not to register their association violated their right to freedom of association, guaranteed under Article 11 of the Convention.   Procedure The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 June 1998 and registered on 29 October 1998. The case was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and a hearing was held on 17 May 2001. It was declared admissible the same day. Chamber judgment In its Chamber judgment the Court initially observed that it was not its task to express an opinion on whether or not the Silesians were a “national minority”.   It went on to note that the authorities’ concerns did not seem to have lacked a reasonable basis. Paragraph 30 of the memorandum of association stated that “The Union is an organisation of the Silesian national minority”. The words “organisation”, “national” and “minority” were precisely those found in section   5(1) of the Law on Parliamentary Elections, laying down conditions for exemption from the threshold of votes required to participate in the distribution of seats in Parliament. This coincidence, together with the name proposed for the applicants’ association, gave the impression that in future the members of the association might aspire to stand in elections.   The Court considered that the applicants could easily have dispelled the doubts voiced by the authorities, in particular by slightly changing the name of their association and by sacrificing, or amending, a single provision of the memorandum of association. Those alterations would not, in the Court’s view, have had harmful consequences for the Union’s existence as an association and would not have prevented its members from achieving their objectives. Pluralism and democracy were based on a compromise that required various concessions by individuals and groups of individuals, who must sometimes be prepared to limit some of their freedoms so as to ensure the greater stability of the country as a whole. This was particularly true regarding the electoral system, which was of paramount importance for any democratic State.   Considering that the Polish authorities had acted reasonably, in order to protect the country’s electoral system, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   11.   ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:     Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)     Stéphanie Klein (telephone: (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.