CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES RESS AND CABRAL BARRETO

We agree with the conclusion reached in the judgment, but would have preferred to see the case declared inadmissible on the ground that it is manifestly ill-founded. In our view, in considering the People ’ s Democratic Party Vatan ’ s right to defend itself against illegal interference, it is rather artificial to divide its structure into a central party organisation and regional organisations. As the Court has rightly stated in paragraph 43, there is a prima facie presumption that, in the case of a political party, the legal personality of a non-governmental organisation extends to the party as a whole and creates a single political entity. It may be that different legal personalities exist under Russian law, but the Court should bear in mind that, in order to protect the existence of political parties and freedom of political expression under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, a broad approach is to be preferred.

In our view, it was arguable under the Convention that Vatan should have had standing in the domestic proceedings in its alleged capacity as a “party as a whole”. The Court ’ s decision to accept the splitting up of a political party into different legal personalities, as permitted under the domestic legal system, makes it rather difficult for a political party to defend its rights against interference by the different state organs. This is particularly true when, as is the case here, a party ’ s regional organisation is subject to interference that may affect the party as a whole. It is implicit in the principle of political representation that it should be acceptable for different legal persons to be involved. We would therefore have accepted Vatan ’ s claim to have been affected by the domestic measure which, in this case, was directed against the party ’ s regional organisation. In our view, Vatan itself was also a victim for the purpose of Article 34 of the Convention and we have no difficulty in accepting that, in addition to Vatan as the central organisation, the regional organisation was also entitled to defend itself against the infringement. The question of whether there was exhaustion of domestic remedies, in that Vatan, unlike the regional organisation, never pursued domestic proceedings in its own name in respect of the alleged violations, is not convincingly answered in the judgment: if the regional organisation acts in a broader perspective, representing the interest of the party as a whole as well as its own interests, then it does not seem justified even to contemplate rejection of Vatan ’ s application on the ground that it failed to institute parallel proceedings before the domestic courts.

Furthermore, the issue is not whether Vatan may represent the regional organisation in the proceedings before this Court, since, if a political party like Vatan is presumed to have an all-embracing identity, then it does in fact defend itself in such proceedings when it challenges interference with a regional organisation. This broader view is derived from the concept that, in a democratic society, political parties are not to be treated as ordinary associations but require specific protection.

We would in any event have come to the conclusion that the application is inadmissible because it is manifestly ill-founded. In our view, the regional court rightly concluded that the Regional Organisation of the People ’ s Democratic Party Vatan openly called for violent alterations to the foundations of constitutional governance and for the creation of an Islamic state in the Volga region, and called for a brigade of “courageous and resistant” people to fight for national liberation and the decolonisation of Russia. In the light of the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey ( [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, ECHR 2003 ‑ II ) we consider those conclusions by the regional court neither exaggerated nor unfounded. In particular, the reference to the Russian Federation as a “war party” whose arms should be “shortened” and to Russian institutions as “Nazis” overstepped the boundary of permissible freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10. Therefore, in our view, it would have been preferable to base the conclusion on these considerations.