|
01. On July 17 the, 2007 the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR) communicated to the
Bulgarian Government the application of Association of
citizens "RADKO" and Vladimir Paunkovski (Vladimir
Pankov) versus the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and forwarded an invitation to the Bulgarian party to
intervene as a third party on the case, according to
Article 36 of the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as the second
applicant is a Bulgarian citizens.
02. On August 30 the, 2007 the Bulgarian Government
informed the ECHR of its willingness to exercise the
right to intervene as a third party on the case.
03. The Bulgarian Government deems that the above
application is admissible, grounded and well-founded.
04. According to article 11 of the Convention “everyone
has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to
freedom of association with others” and “no restrictions
shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other
than such as are prescribed by law and arc necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of national
security or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or
morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others”. The right to freedom of assembly and to
freedom of association with others is subject to certain
limitations because its exercise infringes the interests
of society and the state. According to the general
principles, adopted Court in its practice under Article
11 of the Convention, the state has the freedom of
judgment at its disposal when choosing the means use to
limit the right to freedom of association. However, the
principle of proportionality between the means used and
the necessity for protection of a high social value must
be respect.
05. As visible from the jurisprudence of the ECHR the
protection of everyone's right to freedom of association
is of great significant for the development of democracy,
since this right gives an for real participation of
citizens in government and for the free expression of
the their views and conviction.
06. In its practice the ECHR explicitly points out every
initiative of the citizens and their associations any
change within the state will be legitimate if two
conditions are kept – the means used by it must be legal
and democratic, and the change it offers must be with
the democratic principles.
07. Based on the criteria, established by the ECHR and
on the facts to the present case, the Bulgarian
Government consider that the limitations of the freedom
to association in this particular case has not been "necessary
in a democratic society", as no "pressing social need"
has existed for the ban of the Association in the
meaning of Article 11 of the Convention.
08. The dissolution of Association is undoubtedly the
most drastic measure for limitation of the freedom of
Association. If this final measure is to be in
accordance with the criteria of the Convention it is
necessary that: relevant and sufficient reasons are
present, in order to justify.
09. In the present case, the only argument pointed out
by the Macedonian Constitutional Court for the
prohibition of the Association is the linking of its
presumed future activity (as the Association did not
have yet the opportunity to perform such activity) to a
historical figure (Ivan Mihaylov – Radko). Consequently,
the Macedonian Constitutional Court has justified its
conclusion that the activity of the Association is aimed
at the forcible change of the constitutionally
established order and the incitement of religious
national hatred or intolerance solely by the arbitrarily
binding of the Association within a certain historical
and ideological context. According to the practice of
Court, such a supposition cannot be a relevant and
sufficient reason for such a drastic interference in the
freedom of Association of the applicant.
10. At the same time although any current interpretation
of historical events, connected with the personality and
activity of Ivan Mihaylov is not and can't be relevant
to the present dispute it has to be remarked that
according to the practice of the ECHR, any- ideas are
under the protection of Article 10 and Article 11 of the
Convention, no matter how shocking or unacceptable they
may be for the authorities and or for the larger part of
society. The mere fact that a political party calls for
autonomy or even requests secession of part of the
country's territory is not a sufficient basis to its
dissolution ort national security grounds. In a
democratic society based on the rule of law political
ideas which challenge the existing order without putting
into question the tenets of democracy, and whose
realization is advocated by :peaceful means must be
afforded a proper opportunity of expression through
inter alias participation in the political process.
However shocking and unacceptable the statements of the
applicant party's leaders and members may appear to the
authorities or the majority of population and however
illegitimate their demands may be they do not appear to
warrant the impugned interference. The fact that the
applicant party’s political programme was considered
incompatible with the current principles and structures
of the Bulgarian State does not make it incompatible
with rules and principles of democracy. It is of the
essence of democracy to allow political programmes to be
proposed and debated, even those that call into question
the way a State is currently organized, provided that
they do not harm democracy itself.
11. Next, we emphasize that absolutely no evidence has
been presented on the case that any of the leaders or
members of the Association have called for the use of
violence or for the rejection of democratic principles.
There is no evidence that activists of the Association
have accomplished practical actions, which effectively
threaten the constitutionally established order in the
country. Nothing in the Association's Articles or
Programme can be interpreted as incompatible with the
principles of democracy. On the contrary, it is clearly
stated in the documents of the Association that it is
independent, non-political public organization, aiming
to strengthen the Macedonian cultural space open for
membership to every Macedonian citizen, Therefore the
immediate and permanent ban, imposed by the
Constitutional Court has not corresponded with the
concept of "pressing social need".
12. In the light of the above the Bulgarian Government
considers that the particular interference in the
freedom of the Association of citizens "RADKO" has not
been “necessary in a democratic society" and therefore
there has been a violation of Article 11 of the
Convention. |