DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S BOTOUCHAROVA AND STEINER

1. We voted against the finding of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in the present case.

2. We accept, as did the majority, that the refusal to register the applicant ’ s political party constituted an interference with his freedom of association, and that this interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim. Where we disagree is in the assessment of whether this interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. While we fully accept the general principles underlying the majority ’ s analysis of this matter, we differ in their application to the particular circumstances of the present case.

3. Insofar as the domestic courts in their judgments and the Government in their pleadings relied on two groups of arguments justifying the interference, we would, as did the majority, examine these groups in turn.

4. The courts first had regard to certain deficiencies in the party ’ s constitution and other registration documents. They noted that the minutes of the party ’ s general meeting held on 26 January 1997 had not been duly signed , that the powers of its organs and its organisational structure were not clearly set out in its constitution, and that the constitution did not set out the manner of terminating membership in the party . Their holdings and the wording of the relevant legal provisions, while succinct, set out in enough detail the requirements which needed to be fulfilled for the party to obtain registration. It is reasonable for a State to expect political parties or other entities seeking registration to comply with certain legitimate formal conditions relating in particular to the manner in which their registration documents are drafted. Therefore, the courts ’ refusal, in accordance with their practice, to register the party on account of its founders ’ failure to fulfil them does not appear arbitrary or an onerous obstacle (see, mutatis mutandis , Movement for Democratic Kingdom v. Bulgaria , no. 27608/95 , Commission decision of 29 November 1995 , unreported).

5. T he courts also had regard to t he party ’ s name . While conceding that it did not fully coincide with that of any other existing party, they were of the view that its similarity (Communist Party of Bulgaria) to that of another existing party (Bulgarian Communist Party) constituted sufficient grounds to deny registration under the requirement of section 8(1) of the Political Parties Act of 1990 that a party ’ s name must set it apart from other parties. That being so, we accept that the courts ’ desire to avoid confusion in the names of different parties was reasonable. That conclusion is not altered by those courts ’ decisions in other cases, where they apparently did not apply such exacting standards, as the Court ’ s task is to rule on the particular facts of the case before it.

6. The second group of arguments invoked by the national courts and the Government for the refusal to register the party had to do with its aims , which they considered to be contrary to certain constitutional and statutory proscriptions. It is true that such grounds for refusing registration may appear problematic if they were the only ones for the impugned interference, as in other cases examined by the Court (see, for example, Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania , no. 46626/99, § 51 , 3 February 2005 ). However, in the particular circumstances of the instant case they were only supplementary and not decisive for the refusal to register the party.

7. For these reasons, we are of the view that t here has been no violation of Article 11 of the Convention .