NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

the Convention. 999 The applicant was a member of the preparatory committee of the Liberal Party (‘LP’), who applied to the Czech Ministry of the Interior to register as a political party. The Ministry refused the application on the ground that the party’s constitution was in breach of national law. It considered in particular that the party’s goal of “breaking the legal continuity with totalitarian regimes” was unconstitutional. The LP’s constitution had advocated a policy of breaking the legal continuity with totalitarian regimes by ending the “impunity in relation to certain offences” committed by representatives of the communist regime. When examining the case, the Court pointed out that it was necessary to take into account the historical and political background of the country. Following the change of regime in 1989, the Czech legislature had passed two laws declaring that the communist regime had consistently and systematically breached human rights and the fundamental principles of a democratic state. Hence, there was no evidence that the LP’s proposed change of law had been incompatible with fundamental democratic principles. The fact that the party’s registration was refused before it even had time to carry out any activities was important. In its decision in the case of Artyomov v. Russia , 1000 The Court ruled that the interference with the applicant’s rights was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. In similar fashion to the Linkov case, 1001 an individual, the leader of the public movement, ‘Russian All-Nation Union,’ lodged the application with the Court. Three years after its registration as a public association, members thereof decided to re-organise the movement into a political party bearing the same name. The party’s registration was refused on the basis of the Russian Political Parties Act, which prohibits the establishment of political parties based on religious or ethnic affiliation. The Court observed that the refusal to register the party did not affect the legal status or activities of the ‘Russian All-National Union’ public movement. The prohibition against explicit ethnic or religious affiliation applied solely to political parties, but not to any other type of public association. Accordingly, the applicant’s ability to lead a public association, even based on ethnic affiliation, was unhampered. In accordance with the margin of appreciation doctrine, the CoE member states have considerable latitude to establish the criteria for participation in elections. The Russian Constitutional Court expounded on the reasons that led it to conclude that in modern-day Russia it would be perilous to foster electoral competition between political parties based on ethnic or religious affiliation. Holding regard for the principle of respect for national specificity in electoral matters, the Court did not find these reasons arbitrary or unreasonable. 1002 2.7.4 Submissions of the other Article 34 NGOs under Article 11 Apart from these two big groups (trade unions and political parties), other Article 34 NGOs complained of a number of different types of violations. Some of them are the same as the issues raised by trade unions and political parties, for 999 FOSTER, S. Human rights and civil liberties . New York: Pearson/Longman, 2008, p. 491. 1000 Artyomov v. Russia (dec.), no. 17582/05, ECHR 2006-XV. 1001 Linkov , cited above. 1002 LÉCUYER, Y. The right to free elections . Strasbourg: Council of Europe publications, 2014, p. 52.

184