CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 août 1999

.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 9 August 1999 APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary (dec.) - 32367/96 Decision 31.8.1999 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Registration of association refused on account of name being considered misleading: inadmissible The first applicant is an unregistered association founded under the name of “Alliance of APEH’s persecutees” by the other applicants. APEH is the commonly used abbreviated name of the national tax authority. The Supreme Court, in upholding the refusal of the applicant association’s request for registration, found that the applicant association’s name did not correspond to its objectives, namely to reform the national taxation system, and that it contravened the Civil Code, which stipulates that a legal entity’s name should not give the false impression that its activity is linked to that of another legal person. Finally, the court considered that the expression “persecutees” used in connection with APEH’s name was defamatory. Inadmissible under Article 11: The refusal to register the association constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of association. It was prescribed by law. The refusal was essentially founded on the fact that the intended name comprised both the tax authority’s own name, which could have given the impression that the association had an official character or was linked to the APEH, and also the term “persecutees”, which was regarded as defamatory of the tax authority. Nothing suggests that the applicants could not have founded and registered an association for the promotion of the taxpayers’ interests, had they chosen another name. The dispute thus arose over the actual name of the association. Therefore, the interference with the applicants’ freedom of association could not be considered as particularly severe and it was legitimate not to accept to register the proposed name of association given its misleading character: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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