Information Note on the Court’s case-law 153

June 2012

Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.) - 31098/08

Decision 12.6.2012 [Section V]

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Ban on activities of Islamist association for advocating the use of violence: inadmissible

Article 17

Destruction of rights and freedoms

Ban on activities of Islamist association for advocating the use of violence: inadmissible

Facts – The applicant association was established in Jerusalem in 1953 and has been active in Germany since the 1960s. It describes itself as a “global Islamic political party and/or religious society”. The second applicant was the association’s representa tive in the proceedings before the European Court. In January 2003 the Federal Ministry of the Interior issued a decision prohibiting the applicant association’s activities in Germany and ordering the confiscation of its assets on the grounds that its acti vities were directed against the principle of international understanding and it had advocated the use of violence. An application to have that decision set aside was rejected by the Federal Administrative Court. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the association’s constitutional complaint for adjudication.

Law – Article 11: The Court reiterated that by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention it was not possible for groups or individuals to derive from the Convention a right to engage in any a ctivity or perform any act aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The Federal Administrative Court had concluded from a careful analysis of a number of articles published by the applicant association and public stat ements by the second applicant that the applicant association had denied the State of Israel’s right to exist and called for its violent destruction and for the banishment and killing of its inhabitants. In particular, the second applicant had repeatedly j ustified suicide attacks in which civilians were killed in Israel, and neither he nor the association had distanced themselves from that stance during the proceedings before the Court. The applicant association had thus attempted to deflect the right to fr eedom of assembly and association under Article 11 from its real purpose by employing that right for ends which were clearly contrary to the values of the Convention, notably the commitment to the peaceful settlement of international conflicts and to the s anctity of human life. Consequently, by reason of Article 17, the association could not benefit from the protection afforded by Article 11.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).

The Court also declared the applicant association’s other complaints (under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) inadmissible.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does n ot bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes