Published on 13 September 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11214/19 INTERNATIONALE HUMANITÄRE HILFSORGANISATION E. V. against Germany lodged on 22 February 2019 communicated on 26 August 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the compatibility with Article 11 of the Convention of the prohibition of the applicant association, entailing its dissolution and the seizure of its assets, for being directed against the concept of international understanding.

The Federal Ministry of the Interior’s prohibition, based on section 3 § 1 of the Associations’ Act ( Vereinsgesetz ) read in conjunction with Article 9 § 2 of the Basic Law, was confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court and subsequently by the Federal Constitutional Court in a leading judgment of 13 July 2018. The prohibition was based on the finding that one out of the six charitable societies to which the applicant had made financial donations and which provided support to the population in the Gaza Strip had to be attributed to Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 11 § 2?

a. In particular, was the interference prescribed by law for the purposes of that provision? Was the applicable law – section 3 § 1 of the Associations’ Act read in conjunction with Article 9 § 2 of the Basic Law – sufficiently precise to enable the applicant association to foresee that the financial donations to the charitable society in question could lead to it being prohibited?

b. Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 11 § 2?

c. If so, was the interference necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

In particular, can the interference be considered as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued although the applicant association had not been given an opportunity, prior to its prohibition, to remedy any shortcomings by stopping the impugned donations to the society in question?

Does the friendly settlement proposal initially made by the Federal Administrative Court but not accepted by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which envisaged such a solution, show that there were less intrusive means than the applicant association’s outright prohibition in order to attain the legitimate aim pursued?

Furthermore, can the applicant association’s prohibition be considered as necessary in the light of the fact that it made donations to six different charitable societies and that only the donations to one of those societies was considered unlawful?