CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 mai 2019

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 229 May 2019 MİHR Foundation v. Turkey - 10814/07 Judgment 7.5.2019 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Dissolution of an insolvent foundation unable to fulfil its registered aims: no violation Facts – In October 2005 a court found that the applicant foundation had been dissolved on account of its financial incapacity to fulfil its mission. It appealed on points of law unsuccessfully. Law – Article 11: The finding by the civil courts as to the dissolution of the applicant foundation could be seen as an interference with its freedom of association, notwithstanding the fact that the foundation was no longer able to function in accordance with the aims set out in its constitution. The impugned measures were prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The applicant foundation had not been dissolved on account of its constitution or activities incompatible therewith, but had simply been declared dissolved because it could no longer afford to carry out its activities in order to fulfil its registered aims. The domestic civil courts had found that it was no longer doing anything to fulfil its aims, because it no longer had any assets except for two buildings which generated its sole revenue from rents, any donations it received were minimal, the income indicated in its balance sheet both before and after the dissolution had been insignificant, and its publication or radio broadcasting activities had been restricted, mainly for economic reasons. The denial of authorisation for a certain number of meetings, during which the participants would purportedly have been called to espouse the beliefs of its chair, had not had decisive repercussions for its financial situation. The same could be said of the refusal by the Turkish Institute for Scientific Research to provide financial support for the distribution of certain books, on the ground that those publications had not been compiled on the basis of scientific methods. The aims of the applicant foundation, which had been expressly set out in its constitution, namely “research, advice and publications in the field of the main natural or social sciences, establishment of universities or faculties with the aim of pursuing such research, economic and commercial activities, various types of social assistance, etc.”, corresponded to aims of public utility or general interest. Having regard to the role played by foundations, both in law and in practice, in ensuring social cohesion in the country, to expect from the applicant foundation that it should meet minimum financial criteria was justified by the need to preserve the efficiency and credibility of the system of public-interest foundations in Turkey. In those circumstances – without prejudice to the question of the re-establishment of the applicant foundation, which was still pending in the national courts –, the reasons given to find that the applicant foundation had been dissolved for financial difficulties were “relevant and sufficient”. This measure had met a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. It was therefore necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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