NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

determined by any ‘pressing social need’, nor were they convincing and compelling. Furthermore, such a radical measure as the refusal of registration, taken even before the association started operating, was disproportionate to the aim pursued. There was accordingly a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. In the case of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, 1008 the UnitedMacedonian Organisation Ilinden and by nine members of its management committee lodged the application with the Court. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention as the refusal to register the association was disproportionate to the objectives pursued. The applicant organisation’s stated aims were to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. The domestic courts rejected its application for registration because the documents submitted were allegedly not in conformity with the technical and substantive requirements of the law. In addition, the domestic courts claimed that by proposing to defend a Macedonian minority and by harbouring separatist views, the organisation would, if registered, be dangerous for the territorial integrity of the country, for the public order and for the rights and freedoms of others. The Court did not accept the fact that formal deficiencies constituted a sufficient reason to deny registration. As regards the alleged dangers stemming from the applicant organisation’s goals and declarations, the Court observed that such alleged intentions were not a sufficient ground to refuse registration. In conclusion, it recalled that the applicant association had only about three thousand supporters, many of whom were not active and, therefore, its public influence was negligible. Despite this fact, the authorities sought pre-emptively to deprive it from any chance to engage in practical action. Consequently, the Court found that the refusal to register the applicant organisation was disproportionate to the objectives pursued. The case of Vona v. Hungary , 1009 concerned the dissolution of an association titled the Hungarian Guard Association, which was founded by members of a political party called Movement for a Better Hungary. The applicant association’s objective was defined as “defending Hungary, defenceless physically, spiritually and intellectually”. Members of this movement, dressed in uniforms, held rallies and demonstrations throughout Hungary calling for the defence of ethnic Hungarians against so-called “Gipsy criminality”. Following one such incident, when the police refused to allow a march to pass through a street inhabited by Roma families, the authorities sought a court order for the dissolution of the applicant association, which the court granted. Although the case concerned the dissolution of an association, rather than the dissolution of a political party, the Court acknowledged that social organisations, such as the applicant’s, could play an important role in shaping politics and policies. It noted that though no violence had actually occurred during the rallies, such activities were capable of conveying the message that its organisers were willing and able to have recourse to a paramilitary organisation in order to achieve their aims. Moreover, the series of demonstrations organised to allegedly end the so-called “Gipsy criminality”

1008 The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden , cited above. 1009 Vona v. Hungary , no. 35943/10, ECHR 2013.

186