NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

in the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (no. 2) . 1102 The applicant in this case was an Italian Masonic association to which several lodges are affiliated. It complained that a regional law passed in 2000 required candidates for nomination and appointment to public office at the regional level to declare whether they are members of any Masonic or secret association. The absence of a declaration served as a ground for refusal of appointment. When assessing the circumstance of the current case, the Court observed that in the first case of Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy , 1103 it had held that the prohibition on appointing Freemasons to public office had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security and preventing disorder. However, this particular measure had been introduced in order to ‘reassure’ the public at a time when there had been controversy surrounding the Masons role in the life of the country. In the instant case (no. 2), the Court considered that those requirements and reasons, valid in 1996, were still valid in 2000. At the time of this second case, unlike in the legislation challenged in thefirst case,membershipof theFreemasonsdidnot automaticallydebar the candidate from appointment to one of the offices in question. When such membership was declared, the public authority used its discretion in determining whether the link between the candidate and the lodge, possibly in conjunction with other considerations, should disqualify the candidate. Nonetheless, only members of a Masonic association were under an obligation to declare their membership when seeking appointment to certain public offices for which the region was the appointing authority. The Italian government had advanced no objective and reasonable justification for this difference in treatment compared with members of non-secret associations. 1104 The Cout also dealt with the complaints under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention in the case of The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2) . 1105 The applicant organisation, in particular, complained that the 2006–2007 refusal to register UMO Ilinden – PIRIN had been motivated by the Bulgarian State’s policy of suppressing the organised activities of persons asserting Macedonian national consciousness. Given that the Court did not find a breach of Article 11 of the Convention, it observed that there isn’t any indication that the refusal to register the applicant party was made on discriminatory grounds. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention. The last part of this section will evaluate a combination of the rights set forth in Articles 14 and the guarantees in the Protocols to the Convention. 2.9.6 Article 14 and the rights in the Protocols to the Convention The Court also dealt with the combination of alleged breaches under Article 14 taken together with the guarantees set forth in the Protocols to the Convention. 1106 In 1102 Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (no. 2) , no. 26740/02, 31 May 2007. 1103 Grande Oriente d’Italia, cited above. 1104 HUBÁLKOVÁ, E. Zákaz diskriminace , 2013, cited above, p. 74. 1105 The UnitedMacedonianOrganisation Ilinden andOthers v. Bulgaria (no. 2) , no. 34960/04, 18October 2011. 1106 Eugenia Michaelidou Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey , no. 16163/90, §§ 37-38, 31 July 2003, Rock

208