Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27608/95

by Movement for Democratic Kingdom

against Bulgaria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 October 1994

by Movement for Democratic Kingdom against Bulgaria and registered on

13 June 1995 under file No. 27608/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant party may be

summarised as follows.

Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant is a political party founded on 10 December 1991.

Before the Commission it is represented by its chairman, Mr. Velko

Kumanov, a Bulgarian national born in 1913 and residing in Sofia.

On 15 December 1991 the applicant party submitted to the Sofia

Regional Court (Sofiiski gradski sad) a petition for registration under

the Act on Political Parties. The petition was accompanied by a list

of the founding members which contained 68 names, a list of the persons

elected as party leaders, a document entitled statute of the party, and

68 declarations of the founders stating that they accept the statute.

The applicant party has not substantiated whether it sought legal

advice in the preparation of its founding documents.

On 28 February 1992 the Court held a hearing on the matter with

the participation of a prosecutor. At the hearing the prosecutor

observed that the statute of the party was not in conformity with the

requirements of Section 8 of the Act on Political Parties (see below

Relevant domestic law). Thus the aims of the political party, the

requirements for membership and the managing body which could admit new

members were not stated. Also, the composition, the convention

procedure and the competence of the general assembly of the party and

its other organs were unclear.

After the case was adjourned the applicant party submitted new

versions of the statute and the minutes from the founding meeting,

accompanied by a list of 115 founding members. These documents were

again dated 10 December 1991, i.e. the founding date of the party.

The Court held a second hearing on the matter. The Court

informed ex officio the applicant party that it was necessary to submit

proof that the amendments in the statute had been approved by a duly

convened general assembly of the party, as this had been the pertinent

procedure under the statute adopted by the founders of the party on

10 December 1991.

The members of the applicant party's leadership, who apparently

were not legally represented, replied that they had submitted all

necessary documents. They also indicated that the new version of the

statute had been signed by 115 individuals between 2 and 8 March 1992.

On 17 April 1992 the Court dismissed the petition for

registration stating that the applicant party had not complied with the

instructions of the Court to submit proof of "convening a general

assembly to adopt the amended statute". The judgment read further:

"... the initial version of the statute does not comply with the

requirements of Section 8 of the Act on Political Parties. The

amended version, submitted later, has not been adopted by the

founders as provided for under Section 7 of the Act. The

omissions and ambiguities of the initial statute render it

defective as not in conformity with the imperative requirements

of the Act on Political Parties. Therefore, it cannot be

considered that a valid founding of a political party has

occurred and the request for registration has to be dismissed."

Upon the applicant party's appeal, on 9 December 1992 the Supreme

Court upheld this decision on the same grounds and also stated that the

fresh document submitted in the proceedings before it and entitled

"founding protocol" was not a protocol from a general assembly and

therefore did not constitute a valid approval of the amended statute.

The chairman of the applicant party submitted a petition for

review (pregled po reda na nadzora) before a five member chamber of the

Supreme Court. This was refused on 18 May 1994 as the statute of the

party was not in conformity with the requirements for registration and

the applicant party did not comply with the instructions of the courts

as regards the rectification of the irregularities.

The chairman of the applicant party also wrote letters to various

institutions complaining of the judicial decisions refusing

registration. In response to one of the letters, the Clerk of the

Parliament's President (Nachalnik na kabineta na Predsedatelia na

Narodnoto sabranie) stated that the quantity of documents submitted by

the applicant party and the fact that it had financial problems did not

appear relevant for its registration.

In his letter of 15 August 1994 addressed to the Parliamentary

Human Rights Committee the applicant party's chairman stated that he

could not understand the judicial decisions. Thus each founding member

had "put 3 - 4 signatures on every document" and therefore the new

version of the statute had been approved. The courts wrongly required

an approval by the general assembly of the party as Section 7 of the

Act on Political Parties did not require the convention of a general

assembly. The chairman concluded that the judges did not want to

register a royalist party as they were afraid for their jobs. He

requested the Committee to instruct the courts to register the party.

Relevant domestic law

Section 7 and 8 of the Act on Political Parties read as follows:

"7. A political party shall be established at a founding

meeting upon the agreement of at least 50 individuals eligible

to vote. The founding meeting shall adopt the statute of the

party and shall elect the leadership."

"8. (1) The statute of a political party shall state: its

name, which shall distinguish the party from other

organisations; its program aims and tasks; the rules for

admission of new members and for terminating membership; the

rights and obligations of members; the managing bodies; the

symbols of the party; its financial sources; and the conditions

and procedure for its winding up ... "

According to Section 1(3) of the Act on Political Parties any

association can engage in "political activity" without registering as

a political party. Under Section 41 (4) of the Act on Elections for

Members of Parliament, Municipal Councils and Mayors only registered

political parties can have a list of candidates in elections.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant party complains under Article 11 of the Convention

that the authorities unlawfully and arbitrarily refused to register it.

Thus the courts stated that the statute of the party had to be adopted

by a duly convened general assembly, whereas under Section 7 of the Act

on Political Parties only a founding meeting was necessary. The

applicant party had submitted a "founding protocol" thereby approving

the amended statute and therefore had complied with the law.

THE LAW

1. The applicant party complains of the allegedly unlawful and

arbitrary refusal of the domestic courts to register it.

Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,

reads as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of .. association

with others ...

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of

these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are

necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of

disorder ... [and] for the protection of the rights and freedoms

of others."

The Commission recalls its case law according to which a refusal

of the authorities to register an association does not necessarily

involve an interference with its rights under Article 11 (Art. 11) of

the Convention where the association is nevertheless free to continue

its activities (No. 14233/88, Dec. 5.6.91, D.R. 70 p. 218, 236; and No.

18874/91, Dec. 12.1.94, D.R. 76 p. 44, 49).

The Commission notes that an unregistered association, such as

the applicant in the present case, is authorised by law to engage in

"political activity", but cannot participate in elections.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that the applicant party was

free at any time to rectify the procedural omissions by convening a

general assembly for the approval of the amended statute. Such a

formal requirement was neither arbitrary, nor an onerous obstacle.

Moreover, the possibility for the applicant party to submit a fresh

petition for registration, once it has complied with the pertinent

requirements under the law, has remained open.

Therefore, the Commission does not find that the Bulgarian

courts, when refusing the applicant party's petition for registration

in the particular circumstances of the case, have interfered with its

rights under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. Insofar as the applicant party may be understood as complaining

under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention of the alleged unfairness

of the proceedings concerning its registration and insofar as the

Commission is competent ratione temporis and materiae to examine this

complaint, it finds that there is no indication that the applicant

party was unable to put forward its point of view, that the courts were

biased or that the proceedings were otherwise unfairly conducted.

Moreover, the courts gave sufficient opportunities to the applicant

party to rectify its omissions and even invited it ex officio to do so.

It follows that the remainder of the application is also

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC KINGDOM v. BULGARIA

MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC KINGDOM v. BULGARIA

LEXI