NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

2.9.5 Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention The Court found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11 in the case of Genderdoc-M v. Moldova . 1099 This case was also previously discussed in the section covering Articles 13 taken together with Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant in the present case was Genderdoc-M, a Moldovan non-governmental organisation whose aim is to provide information to and assist the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community. The case concerned the banning of a demonstration that the applicant association had planned to hold in order to encourage laws for the protection of sexual minorities from discrimination. Genderdoc-M complained in particular that it had been discriminated against in comparison with other associations due to the fact that it promoted the interests of the gay community in Moldova. The Court observed that the applicant adduced as evidence decisions of the Chisinău Mayor’s Office allowing various other assemblies during the same period of time. No explanation was given as to this difference in treatment between the applicant association and the other associations. Moreover, the reason for the ban imposed on the event proposed by the applicant was the authorities’ disapproval of demonstrations which they considered to promote homosexuality. In particular, the Chişinău Mayor’s Office has insisted before the domestic courts that the applicant’s assembly should be banned due to the opposition of many Moldovan citizens to homosexuality. When limiting the right of assembly, national authorities should offer clear reasons for so doing. However, in the present case each authority which dealt with the applicant association’s request to hold a demonstration rejected it for a different reason. Consequently, all this taken together constituted a breach of the Convention. In the case of Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia , 1100 the applicant branch complained, under, inter alia, Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11, that it had been discriminated against on account of its position as a religious minority in Russia. 1101 In the present case, the Court highlighted that Article 14 has no independent existence, but plays an important role by complementing the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, since it protects individuals placed in similar situations from any discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights set forth in those other provisions. However, in the circumstances of this case, the inequality of treatment, of which the applicant claimed to be a victim, was sufficiently taken into account in the above assessment that led to the finding of a violation of substantive Convention provisions, namely finding a violation of Article 11 itself. The Court concluded that there was no cause for a separate examination of the same facts from the standpoint of Article 14 of the Convention. The statutory obligation for Freemasons to declare their membership when applying for regional authority posts led to a violation of Article 14 of the Convention 1099 Genderdoc-M , cited above, § 55. 1100 Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army, cited above. 1101 FAGAN, G. Russia: Will Salvation Army‘s European Court victory set a precedent? (online). URL: accessed 4 March 2015.

207