Information Note on the Court’s case-law 67

August-September 2004

W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 42264/98

Decision 2.9.2004 [Section III]

Article 17

Destruction of rights and freedoms

Prohibition on forming associations on account of objectionable objectives: inadmissible

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Prohibition on forming an association which defamed a public institution: inadmissibl e

The applicants wished to form various associations and submitted the proposed memorandums for such associations to the authorities. One of the associations was of “Persecuted Civil Servants of the Ministry of Internal Affairs”, which had as main objectiv e to identify cases of repression within that Ministry. Another was of “Persecuted Police Officers and Teachers”, and the third one was of “Polish Victims of Bolshevism and Zionism”, which aimed, inter alia , at abolishing the privileges of ethnic Jews and stopping the persecution of ethnic Poles. The authorities applied to the courts for a decision to prohibit the formation of such associations. In all three cases the courts prohibited their formation. With regard to the first association, the prohibition w as because its objectives had not been fixed in compliance with the relevant law as well as because its name suggested the existence of persecution in the Ministry and thus defamed a public institution. As regards the third one, the courts found that all t he objectives in its memorandum, except one, were either unlawful or unrealistic.

Inadmissible under Article 11: (i) The complaint concerning the prohibition on forming the “Association of Polish Victims of Bolshevism and Zionism” was rejected under Articl e 17, the Court agreeing with the Government that some of the statements in the memorandum of association concerning the persecution of Poles by the Jewish minority and the inequality between them could be seen as reviving anti-Semitism. Moreover, the appl icants’ racist attitudes had been shown in the anti-Semitic tenor of some of their submissions before the Court. There was sufficient evidence showing that the applicants had sought to use Article 11 to engage in activities which were contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, they could not rely on Article 11 to challenge the prohibition of the formation of this association.

(ii) As regards the prohibition on forming the “Association of Persecuted Functionaries of the Ministry of Internal Affairs”, the interference with the applicants’ freedom of association was “prescribed by law” and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting “national security” and the “rights and freedoms of others”. Taking into account the margin of appreciation which States had in this field and the grounds on which the domestic courts had based their decision, the prohibition could be considered as having been “necessary in a democratic society”: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-L aw Information Notes