CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } SECOND SECTION Application no. 50367/08 László TOROCZKAI against Hungary lodged on 15 October 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr László Toroczkai, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Szeged. He is represented before the Court by Mr   T. Gaudi-Nagy, a lawyer practising in Budapest. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is the founder of the Hunnia “egy eredeti Magyarországért” Alapítvány (Hunnia Foundation “for an original Hungary”). He established the foundation on 10 September 2007. In its deed of foundation its objective was defined as, amongst others, aiming at: “the reinforcement of the cultural identity of Hungarians living in Hungary and in the surrounding countries through keeping traditions, ... organising conferences and discussions ... in the whole Carpathian Basin”. Furthermore its declared objectives were, inter alia : “the protection of the environment, flora and fauna, the support of alternative, environment-friendly energy resources, bio-agriculture in the Carpathian Basin ..., the support of publications, printed and electronic media, addressing the Hungarian population and the Carpathian Basin ..., the support of access to information in the mother tongue for the Hungarian population in the Carpathian basin...” The applicant submitted to the Pest County Regional Court a petition requesting the registration of the foundation. On 23 November 2007 the court rejected the registration in application of sections 74/A (2) and 77 (3) of the Civil Code. The court stated that the foundation did not fulfil the legal conditions firstly, with respect to the naming of legal persons and, secondly, with respect to the aims of foundations. The relevant reasons for that decision read as follows: “...According to the name of the foundation, its objectives are activities in support of an ‘original Hungary’, thus declaring the value judgment that current Hungary is a ‘sham’ Hungary, [which constitutes] a violation of the rights and legal interests of others. The real ... aims of the foundation ... shall be interpreted in the light of the public appearances of its founder and its president of trustees.” On 10 December 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Budapest Court of Appeal, requesting that the first-instance decision be quashed and the foundation be registered. On 27 March 2008 that court upheld the first-instance decision, holding that the naming of the foundation did not meet the statutory criteria, and that the foundation did not have the prerogatives to carry out its declared aims and activities. The reasons for that decision included the following passage: “... the foundation’s naming and aims could be attributed a political message and an ambiguous meaning in violation of the laws on the sovereignty of neighbouring states, could impair rights of Hungarian national minorities, and could be detrimental to the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the Hungarian courts unlawfully refused to register his foundation, and alleges a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. In his submissions, the national courts’ refusal to register the foundation was based on a value judgment and on a mere presumption about the true aims of the founders, derived from the name of the foundation.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention?