Fwd: ECHR Convicts Bulgaria for Violation of Macedonians' Rights of Freedom of Assembly and Association
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:23:03 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: ECHR Convicts Bulgaria for Violation of Macedonians' Rights of Freedom of Assembly and Association
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Greek Helsinki Monitor
<[email protected]>
Fwd: ECHR Convicts Bulgaria for Violation of Macedonians'
Rights of Freedom of Assembly and Association
PRESS RELEASE:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/Oct/Stankovjudepresshtm
COURT JUDGMENT:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/200110/stankov+ilinden%20-%2029221jv.chb1%2002102001e.doc
693
2.10.2001
Press release issued by the Registrar
CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF
STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing
judgment [fn] in the case of Stankov and the United Moacedonian
Organsation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (application numbers 29225/95 &
29221/95.) The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a
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 applicants
40,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 36,127 for
legal costs and expenses. (The judgment is only available in English.)
1. Principal facts
The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden is an association based in
South-West Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the
geographic region of Pirin Macedonia). Its chairman for an unspecified
period was Iordan Kostadinov Ivanov, a Bulgarian national living in
Sandanski, Bulgaria. The other applicant, Boris Stankov, is a
Bulgarian national born in 1926 and living in Petrich, Bulgaria. At
the relevant time he was the chairman of a branch of the applicant
association.
The applicant association was founded in 1990 to unite Macedonians in
Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis and to achieve recognition
of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. In 1991 the association was
refused registration as the courts found that its aims were in reality
directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated ethnic
hatred and was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria.
The scope of the case before the Court was limited to events between
1994 and 1997, when the authorities prohibited the holding of
commemorative meetings organised by the applicant association and Mr
Stankov at the same times and in the same places as official
ceremonies.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human
Rights on 29 July 1994. Additional complaints were introduced on
various dates between 1994 and 1997. Having joined the applications,
the Commission declared them partly admissible. The case was
transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999 and allocated to the First
Section. A hearing was held on 17 October 2000.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President,
Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch),
Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian),
Josep Casadevall (Andorran),
Bostjan Zupancic (Slovenian),
Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges,
and also Michael O�Boyle, Section Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment
Complaint
The applicants complained that their right to freedom of assembly
guaranteed under Article 11 of the Convention had been violated.
Decision of the Court
Article 11
Considering that Article 11 of the Convention was applicable, that
there was an interference with the applicants� right to peaceful
assembly which was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, the
Court concentrated on whether or not that interference was necessary
in a democratic society for the achievement of a legitimate aim.
The Court noted that the applicant association had been refused
registration in 1990 and 1991 on the ground that it was
unconstitutional. It considered however that, while the findings of
the courts were undoubtedly relevant, an automatic reliance on the
fact that an organisation had been considered anti-constitutional -
and refused registration - could not suffice to justify under Article
11 � 2 of the Convention a practice of systematic bans on the holding
of peaceful assemblies.
The Court, therefore, went on to consider the particular grounds
invoked by the authorities to justify the bans and the significance of
the interference with the applicants� freedom of assembly.
Possession of arms
The Court found that if there had been preparation for armed action
the Government would have been able to adduce more serious evidence
than a newspaper article and a copy of a typewritten flyer.
Threat to public order
The Court noted that no serious disturbances had occurred at previous
meetings involving the applicants and that nobody had been prosecuted.
The risk of minor incidents did not justify the ban.
Dissemination of separatist ideas
The Court found that the authorities could anticipate that separatist
slogans, calling for autonomy for the region of Pirin Macedonia, or
even secession from Bulgaria, would be broadcast by some participants.
However, the fact that a group called for autonomy or even requested
secession of part of the country�s territory - thus demanding
fundamental constitutional and territorial changes - could not
automatically justify a prohibition of its assemblies. Demanding
territorial changes in speeches and demonstrations did not
automatically amount to a threat to the country�s territorial
integrity and national security. The essence of democracy was its
capacity to resolve problems through open debate. Sweeping bans on
freedom of expression and assembly, other than in cases of incitement
to violence or rejection of democratic principles, did a disservice to
democracy and often even endangered it. In a democratic society based
on the rule of law, political ideas which challenged the existing
order and whose realisation was advocated by peaceful means had to be
afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of
the right of assembly as well as by other lawful means. The Court
concluded that the probability that separatist declarations would be
made did not justify the ban on Ilinden�s meetings.
Propagation of violence
Examining all the evidence before it, the Court found no indication
that the meetings were likely to become a platform for the propagation
of violence or the rejection of democracy to a degree warranting their
prohibition. Most of the statements and declarations of Ilinden
emphasised reliance on public debate and political pressure and
expressly rejected violence. Isolated statements that could appear to
be calling for violence were not representative, carried an element of
exaggeration as they sought to attract attention and in any event
could adequately be dealt with through the prosecution of those
responsible.
"Convertion" of the Bulgarian people into Macedonians
There was no indication that unlawful means of "conversion" were used
or were likely to be used.
Offending public opinion
Noting that Ilinden�s meetings generated a degree of tension as
Bulgarian national heroes were treated as Macedonian martyrs, the
Court found however that the fact that what was at issue touched on
national symbols and national identity could not be seen in itself as
calling for a wider margin of appreciation to be left to the national
authorities. The authorities had to display particular vigilance to
ensure that national public opinion was not protected at the expense
of minority views (the applicants� had only about 3,000 supporters),
no matter how unpopular they might be.
The Court further noted that the place of the meetings were crucial to
the applicants as well as for those attending the official ceremonies
and that it had not been shown that the celebrations could not proceed
peacefully either at the same time or shortly afterwards.
In sum, the Court found that, as there was no real, foreseeable risk
of violent action, of incitement to violence or of a rejection of
democratic principles, the bans on the applicants� meetings were not
justified under paragraph 2 of Article 11.
Judge Botoucharova expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to
the judgment.
***
The Court�s judgments are accessible on its Internet site
(http://www.echr.coe.int).
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F � 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
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.
[fn] 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.
_______________________________________
Greek Helsinki Monitor
e-mail: [email protected]
Internet Addresses:
Balkan Human Rights Web Pages: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr
The Balkan Human Rights List: http://www.egroups.com/group/balkanhr
The Greek Human Rights List: http://www.egroups.com/group/greekhr
Dikaiomatika! [monthly human rights review in Greek]:
http://www.egroups.com/group/dikaiomatika
Mail Address:
P.O. Box 60820
GR-15304 Glyka Nera, Greece
Telephone and Fax:
Tel. +30-1-347.22.59;
Fax +30-1-601.87.60
________________________________________
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================