CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206 April 2017 Lovrić v. Croatia - 38458/15 Judgment 4.4.2017 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Civil rights and obligations Inability to challenge expulsion from association in the civil courts: violation Facts – The applicant was a member of a hunting association. In 2012 a general meeting adopted a resolution expelling him from that association. The applicant brought a civil action which was declared inadmissible on the grounds that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the courts. In the proceedings before the European Court the applicant complained that he had been unable to challenge that decision before judicial authorities. Law – Article 6 §   1 (a)     Admissibility – Article 6 §   1 secured to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. That right extended only to disputes over civil rights and obligations which could be said to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether such rights were protected under the Convention. The dispute had to be genuine and serious; it might relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings had to be directly decisive for the right in question. Croatian law afforded judicial protection to members’ rights stemming from the statute of the association to which they belonged. The right to be a member of an association was a right of a civil nature, concomitant to the right to freedom of association, and Article 6 §   1 applied to proceedings concerning expulsion from an association. It was evident that the proceedings the applicant complained of concerned a genuine and serious dispute over his freedom of association, in particular over his right to remain a member of the association in question, and that the outcome of those proceedings was directly decisive for the right and the freedom in question. Conclusion : admissible (majority). (b)     Merits – The restriction on the applicant’s right of access to court pursued the legitimate aim of respect for the autonomy of associations. The organisational autonomy of associations constituted an important aspect of their freedom of association protected by Article   11. In particular, associations had to be able to wield some power of discipline, even to the point of expulsion, without fear of outside interference. However, freedom of association and, consequently, the organisational autonomy of associations, were not absolute. State interference with the internal affairs of associations could not be completely excluded. In particular, an association had to be held to some minimum standard in expelling a member. In such cases the scope of judicial review could be restricted in order to respect the organisational autonomy of associations. However, the applicant, who contested his expulsion from the association, had been completely denied access to court. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41: No claim made. The most appropriate form of redress would be to reopen the proceedings. (See APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v.   Hungary , 32367/96, 5   October 2000, Information Note   23 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes