PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I share the Chamber ’ s final conclusion that there has been violation of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s dissolution , and I share also the main part of its arguments concerning this conclusion. But I cannot agree with the position of the majority o n the first issue – the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register the amendments of the information contained in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities because of various omissions, including the party ’ s failure to submit certain documents , thereby leaving it open to doubt whether the general conference had been held in accordance with the law and with its articles of association (§ 15).

Leaving aside the problem of the quality of the law regulating political parties ’ activities - dura lex , sed lex - I would point out that the respondent Government stressed that the refusal to register the party had not been definitive and the applicant could have correct ed the identified defects in the documents and re-submit ted its request for registration. In some similar situations concerning religious organisations ( for example, Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia , no. 18147/02, j udg ment of 5 April 2007 , and The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia , no. 72881/02, j udg ment of 5 October 2006) , or a local political organisation ( Presidential Party of Mordovia v. Russia , no. 65659/0 1 , j udgment of 5 October 2004) , the organisations concerned did renew their applications, exhausting domestic procedures in full lest there be any doubt . The problem of the registration of the amendments of an existing political organisation could have been resolved at this stage had the organisation in question be en more respectful of the procedural requirements. The applicant party preferred to challenge the refusal before a court after the second attempt, and the national courts found that the documents submitted did not meet the requirements established by law.

The Court has declared inadmissible applications having circ um stances similar to the instant case ( such as Baisan and Liga Apararii Drepturilor Omului din Roma ̂ nia v. Romania , no. 28973/95, Dec. 30 October 1995 , and Carmuirea Spirituala a Musulmanilor din Republica Moldova v. Moldova, no. 12282/02, Dec. 14 June 2005) because the applicants failed to observe the requirements of the national legislation. Unfortunately, in the present case the Chamber did not follow the Court ’ s case-law but declared this issue admissible and went on to find a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.

However, I agree with my colleagues that the sanction – the party ’ s dissolution after 15 years of existence because of its alleged failure (disputed by the applicant) to comply with minimum membership and regional representation requirements – was hasty and disproportionate , and that the domestic authorities did not adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the interference with the applicant ’ s right to freedom of association.