DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BOTOUCHAROVA

1. The majority has found that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in this case. I was not able to subscribe to this conclusion for the following reasons.

2. The principles on which the Court ’ s approach to allegations of unjustified interferences with freedom of association is based have been clearly set out in its case ‑ law, to which the present judgment refers (see paragraphs 53, 55 and 57 ‑ 62 of the judgment). I fully accept those principles. I also agree with the majority that the Court ’ s task in each case is to scrutinise , in the light of those principles, the particular grounds relied on to justify the interference and its significance (see paragraph 63 of the judgment). It is the application of these principles to the facts of the present case that could have led to a different conclusion, if due weight had been given to the particular circumstances and, more specifically, the reasons invoked by the domestic courts to refuse the applicant association registration.

3. The present application, although part of a group (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria , nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ IX ; T he U nited M acedonian O rganisation I linden and I vanov v. Bulgaria , no. 44079/98 , 20 October 2005; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005; and Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 46336/99, 24 November 2005), illustrates well the principle that, while being attentive to the overall context, the Court confine s its attention as far as possible to the issues raised by the specific case before it (see Mellacher and Others v. Austria , judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 24, § 41 ; and Kokkinakis v. Greece , judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260 ‑ A, p. 18, § 35). The case concerns, as pointed out in paragraph 30 of the judgment, solely the refusal to register Ilinden in 1998 ‑ 99, not the earlier refusal to do so in 1990 ‑ 91, or the subsequent one in 2002 ‑ 04 . The Court is likewise not called upon to rule in the present proceedings on the various interactions between Ilinden and the authorities throughout the years (see paragraph 31 of the judgment). The narrow issue before the Court today is thus not whether the interferences with the freedoms of assembly and association of Ilinden and its members and supporters are in principle acceptable, but whether the refusal to register the association in 1998 ‑ 99 was justified, regard being had to the motivation of the national courts. Therefore, the fact that the interferences with the applicant association ’ s Article 11 rights have been considered problematic in other instances should not prejudge the outcome of this case.

4. As noted by the majority, the main issue here is whether or not the interference with the applicants ’ freedom of association was necessary in a democratic society (see paragraph 55 in fine of the judgment). The analysis below will accordingly focus on that.

5. The Court has had occasion to state in a number of cases that by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital force of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position to give an opinion on the necessity of an interference. For that reason they are granted a certain margin of appreciation, whose scope depends on the Convention issue at stake. This accordingly determines to what extent the Court will probe into delicate issues, especially in cases, such as the present one, in which the conduct and statements of the entity whose freedom of association the authorities interfered with generated tension in a region with heightened local sensitivities. I have already had occasion to indicate this in my separate opinions in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (cited above) and, more recently, in The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others , and Ivanov and Others (both cited above ) .

6. In the instant case, the national courts found that the documents enclosed by the applicants to their registration request indicated, inter alia , that Ilinden “was not categorically excluding the use of violence” (see paragraph 17 of the judgment). Indeed, Ilinden ’ s articles of association astound with the harshness of the language used (see paragraph 15 of the judgment). Bearing in mind that the national authorities – in the case at hand, the first-instance court – are better placed to make such specific assessments of fact, their holding that the wording of the articles of the association was suggestive of a risk of violence does not appear unreasonable. In this connection, account should be taken of the fact that Ilinden ’ s members and supporters had on a number of previous (and, for that matter, subsequent) occasions had clashes with opponents. These incidents were to a considerable extent caused by the provocativeness of the organisation ’ s separatist statements and threats against the country ’ s territorial integrity. Conversely, the lack of any identification of a risk of violence was one of the main reasons why in a recent case it was concluded that the dissolution of a political party had been in breach of Article 11 (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others , cited above, § 60). Due weight should also be given to the local sensitivities which exist in the Pirin region and the resulting need for heightened vigilance of the authorities.

7. Moreover, in their decisions the national courts had regard to a number of technical and substantive deficiencies in Ilinden ’ s registration documents.

8. Finally, the interference, although radical (paragraph 80 of the judgment) did not have the same fundamental impact as the one in the case of The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others (cited above). There, the dissolved political party had existed for some time and had already participated in the country ’ s political life.

9. For these reasons, regrettable as the result of the national courts ’ refusal to register Ilinden in 1998 ‑ 99 may seem, I cannot conclude that it amounted to a violation of the applicants ’ rights under Article 11 of the Convention in the particular circumstances of the case.