CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK

1. I agree that there has been a violation in the instant case. However, I have reservations concerning the reasoning.

2. It is for national legislation to decide whether to introduce homogeneous rules for all types of associations or to distinguish and define different types of associations and subject them to different rules. National legislation may in particular devise special rules for political parties. If the national parliament chooses the latter method, the applicable rules should not prevent citizens from forming associations which seek to attain goals belonging to the different types of associations defined in national law.

The main functions of political parties are to participate in the exercise of public power and to compete in elections. However, influencing public policies does not seem to be the sole preserve of political parties. Many associations in different countries which do not wish to take part in elections and seek public power try to influence public policies by other means. A restriction on forming associations which are not political parties but which intend to influence public policies does not seem justified under the Convention.

In the instant case one of the goals of the association founded by the applicant was to influence public policies. The domestic court considered that “the concepts used by the organisation had been very general and had run the risk of being understood as belonging to the field of activities of political parties” (see paragraph 10 of the judgment). The association ’ s declared goals “could have been perceived as belonging to the field of activities of political parties” (see paragraph 37). It is difficult to understand this argument, which seems to be based upon the implicit assumption that political parties should have a monopoly on influencing public policies. Furthermore, it has not been shown by the Government that under Romanian legislation, the function of influencing public policies is in fact reserved for political parties. In such a context, the decision not to register the association does not seem to have a sufficient legal basis in domestic law and in any event did not provide sufficient and relevant reasons.

3. The Court ’ s reasoning in the instant case also states that “it does not appear from the evidence available in the case file that the applicant was either summoned in chambers, or asked in writing to remedy those irregularities. Given that the national law aimed to give associations a chance to remedy any irregularities during the registration process, the decision of the last-instance court to dismiss the application for registration without allowing the applicant any time or giving him an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies found by the court appears to contradict the purpose and spirit of the law (see, mutatis mutandis, The Argeş College of Legal Advisers , cited above, § 40)” (see paragraph 41). This statement suggests that the refusal to register the association was disproportionate because it did not have the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies within the same procedure. Such reasoning is based on the assumption that the restrictions placed on the content of the internal rules were not disproportionate per se .

The reasoning also states that “in so far as the Government suggested that the association could have made a second application for registration after amending its articles of association, the Court observes that it has already established that imposing such a duty on the applicant would have amounted to a disproportionate burden given that the domestic legislation had allowed for the possibility of having the potential irregularities remedied during the course of the first set of registration proceedings” (see paragraph 42).

I disagree with this approach. I do not consider that the requirement to amend the internal rules of an association and to resubmit a registration request is a disproportionate burden per se . The problem is not that it was necessary to amend the internal rules and resubmit the registration request but the fact that it was not possible to r egister as an association a non ‑ governmental organisation which did not wish either to obtain the status of a political party or to use the tools belonging by nature to political parties, but intended to influence public policies.