NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

courts supported theMinistry and the company was dissolved.The company complained before the Court that its dissolution had violated their freedom of expression. The Court observed that in the materials in its possession, there was no evidence that the applicant company had been engaged in activities breaching public order. Taking into particular account the severe consequences of the dissolution order for a publishing company, it concluded that the interference in question was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. Therefore, there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the applicant company Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A. Ş. The Court is often criticised for its tendency to be more active in respect of the national governments handling the matters under Article 10. 926 On one hand, it could seem unnecessary as far as the issue usually realised in domestic relation and the national authorities are better placed for evaluation of the evidence. On the other hand, some of the applications submitted to the Court are of a trans-border nature. The case of Delfi v. Estonia is a great example. Infringement of the right to freedom of expression may go along with dissolution of an Article 34 NGO. The next section will evaluate complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of interests.

926 FURA-SANDSTRÖM, cited above, p. 167.

170