Sabotage van oprichting nieuwe politieke partij: Mensenrechtenhof veroordeelt Bulgarije (en)

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tsonev v. Bulgaria (application no. 45963/99).

The Court held by five votes to two 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) the Court held by five votes to two that the finding of a violation of Article 11 constituted sufficient compensation for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

• 1. 

  Principal facts

The applicant, Anguel Tsonev Anguelov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Sofia. He is the founding member and chairman of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Youth Party.

The applicant and 49 others formed the Communist Party of Bulgaria and the applicant was elected chairman. The party’s constitution stated that the party stood for the “idea of a revolutionary socio political order”.

On 3 December 1996 the applicant applied to Sofia City Court to have the party registered. The court held two hearings during which certain irregularities and deficiencies in the party’s documents were pointed out which the members subsequently attempted to rectify.

On 6 March 1997 the court decided to refuse to register the party. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court who upheld the lower court’s decision.

It was held that the applicants had failed to comply with the requirements of the Political Parties Act of 1990. In particular it was noted that the minutes amending the party’s constitution had not been signed and that the powers of the party’s organs and its organisational structure were not clearly set out in its constitution, and that the constitution did not set out the manner of terminating membership in the party. It was also held that its aims were identical to those of certain other parties.

The Supreme Court found the party could not be registered as its name was too similar to that of another party, the former ruling Bulgarian Communist Party.

It was also held that the party’s aims ran counter to both the Constitution and the Political Parties Act of 1990.

Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution prohibits organisations whose “activity is directed against the sovereignty [or] the territorial integrity of the country and the unity of the nation, towards the incitement of racial, national, ethnical or religious enmity ..., as well as organisations which seek to achieve their goals through violence”.

Section 3(2) of the Political Parties Act of 1990 prohibited parties which were aimed against the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the country, or the rights and freedoms of its citizens, whose aims were contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the country, or which advocated a fascist ideology or tried to achieve their goals through violence or other unlawful means.

The Supreme Court judged that the word “revolutionary” in the party’s constitution indicated that its aims fell within the ambit of the above prohibitions.

• 2. 

  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 September 1998 and declared partly admissible on 14 December 2004.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Christos Rozakis (Greek), President,

Peer Lorenzen (Danish),

Nina Vaji? (Croatian),

Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),

Anatoli Kovler (Russian),

Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian),

Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges,

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

• 3. 

  Summary of the judgment [3]

Complaints

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the refusal of the courts to register the Communist Party of Bulgaria had infringed his freedom of association and was unnecessary in a democratic society. He also alleged that the registration proceedings had been unfair. He relied on Articles 11 and 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.

Decision of the Court

The Court observed that the Bulgarian Government based their arguments on formal deficiencies in the registration documents and the alleged dangers stemming from the party’s goals and declarations.

Regarding the alleged defects in its constitution and registration documents, the Court noted that section 8(1) of the Political Parties Act of 1990 did not specify the exact manner in which the party’s constitution had to be drafted. Nor did it lay down any guidelines as to how its organs and their powers, or the procedure or grounds for terminating membership in the party should be described. Neither did section 7 of that Act indicate the technical manner in which the registration documents had to be signed; it merely provided that a political party was formed at a founding meeting upon the agreement of at least 50 enfranchised citizens, and that the founding meeting adopted its constitution and elected its management organs. It was the national courts’ task to elucidate the true tenor of these provisions and thus give the party’s founders clear notice how to draft the relevant documents in order to be able to obtain registration. In view of this and of the insufficient clarity of these courts’ holdings on the formal shortcomings which they identified in the party’s registration documents, the Court considered that that ground for refusing registration had not been made out.

The Court was also unable to subscribe to the domestic courts’ holding that the applicant’s party’s name was in fact an obstacle to its registration because of its similarity to that of another registered party and to that of the former ruling Bulgarian Communist Party. The Court noted that several parties existed in Bulgaria whose names included the word “communist” and that in 2000, Sofia City Court accepted to amend the registration of a party called Communist Party of Bulgaria – a name exactly matching that of the applicant’s party.

In conclusion, having regard to all the materials in the case file, the Court was not satisfied that the national courts’ findings concerning the alleged formal deficiencies in the documents submitted by the party’s founders constituted in the circumstances a sufficient reason to deny registration. Neither could it accept that the fact that the party’s aims were identical to those of certain other parties could serve as grounds to refuse the registration of a party in a pluralistic and democratic society.

The Court found no indication that the party was seeking, despite its name, to establish the domination of one social class over the others. Nor was there any evidence that in choosing to include the word “revolutionary” in the preamble to its constitution that it had opted for a policy that represented a real threat to Bulgarian society or to the Bulgarian State. Moreover, there were other parties in Bulgaria which used the same word in their names and manifestoes and where it was apparently not interpreted as meaning that they were likely to resort to violence if allowed to exist and participate in the political process. Nor was there anything in the party’s declarations, as set out in the preamble to its constitution, which could lead to the conclusion that its aims were undemocratic or that it intended to use violence to attain them.

The Court accepted that a party’s political programme might conceal objectives and intentions different from the ones it proclaimed, however, the party’s programme could hardly have been belied by any practical action it took, since its application for registration was refused and it consequently did not even have time to take any action. It was thus penalised for conduct relating to the exercise of freedom of expression.

The Court finally noted that if the party had subsequently tried to engage in any violent or antidemocratic action, the authorities would not have been powerless; under former sections 22 and 23 of the Political Parties Act of 1990, former section 12 of the Political Parties Act of 2001, and section 40 of the Political Parties Act of 2005, the competent court could have dissolved the party if its functioning proved to be contrary to the Constitution or the law.

The Court concluded that the goals and the declarations of the applicant’s party were likewise not a sufficient ground to refuse its registration. Furthermore, it noted that, in its impact on the party, the impugned measure was radical: it went so far as to prevent it from even commencing any activity.

The Court concluded that the reasons invoked by the authorities to refuse the registration of the party were not relevant and sufficient. That being so, the interference with the applicant’s freedom of association could not be deemed necessary in a democratic society. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 11.

The Court held unanimously that it did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints under 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)

Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)

Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

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 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.

• 2. 

  This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.