CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 février 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   050 3.02.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PARTIDUL COMUNISTILOR (NEPECERISTI) AND UNGUREANU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi)and Ungureanu v. Romania (application no. 46626/99). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Ungureanu 100   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage he had sustained. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The application was lodged by a political grouping named Partidul Comunistilor ( Nepeceristi ) (Party of Communists who have not been members of the Romanian Communist Party, “the PCN”), and by its chairman, Gheorghe Ungureanu, a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Arges (Romania).   The PCN was founded in March 1996 and its aims, according to its political programme, was to defend workers’ interests and to uphold the basic tenets of Communist doctrine. Its representative, Mr Ungureanu, applied to register the PCN on the special register of political parties. In a judgment of 19 April 1996, the Bucharest District Court dismissed his application on the grounds that the PCN was seeking to gain political power in order to establish a “humane State” founded on communist doctrine, meaning that the applicants considered the constitutional and legal order that had been in place since 1989 as inhumane and not based on genuine democracy. That decision was upheld on 28 August 1996 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.   Mr Ungureanu has since expressed his convictions in various publications, including a newspaper Pentru socialism (“For socialism”), of which he was the editor, and a book he published in 2003.         2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 April 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 October 1998. It was declared admissible on 16   December 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Renate Jaeger (German), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that the Romanian courts’ refusal to grant their application to register the PCN as a political party had infringed their right to freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. In addition, relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they submitted that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their political opinions.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 of the Convention   The Court found that the refusal to register the PCN amounted to interference with the applicants’ freedom of association, and was based on Legislative Decree no. 8/1989 on the registration and functioning of political parties. Having regard in particular to Romania’s experience of totalitarianism, the Court considered that the measures taken could be regarded as being in the interests of national security and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.   Since the Romanian courts had rejected the application for registration of the PCN solely on the basis of its constitution and political programme, the Court said that its assessment of the necessity for the interference would be based on those two documents. It would not take into account statements made by Mr Ungureanu years after the interference, as the Romanian Government had submitted it should; in any event, it had not found in those statements any call for the use of violence for political ends or any political goals that contravened democratic principles.   Having examined the PCN’s constitution and political programme, the Court noted that they stressed the importance of upholding the national sovereignty, territorial integrity and legal and constitutional order of the country, and democratic principles including political pluralism, universal suffrage and freedom to participate in politics. They did not contain any passages that might be considered a call for the use of violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles – which was an essential factor to be taken into consideration – or for the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. It was true that there were passages criticising both the abuses of the former Communist Party before 1989, from which the PCN distanced itself, and the policy that had been followed subsequently. However, the Court considered that there could be no justification for hindering a political group that complied with the fundamental principles of democracy solely because it had criticised the constitutional and legal order of the country and had sought a public debate in the political arena.   The Court further noted that, owing to the rejection of its application for registration, the PCN had not had time to take concrete action that might have revealed that its pursued aims were contrary to those it proclaimed in public. It had thus been penalised for conduct that related solely to the exercise of freedom of expression.   The Court was prepared to take into account the historical background to cases before it, in this instance Romania’s experience of totalitarian communism prior to 1989. However, that context could not by itself justify the need for the interference, especially bearing in mind that communist parties adhering to Marxist ideology had been present in a number of countries that were signatories to the Convention.   In conclusion, the Court considered that a measure as drastic as the refusal to register the PCN as a political party even before it had commenced its activities appeared disproportionate to the aim pursued and, consequently, not necessary in a democratic society. There had therefore been a violation of Article 11.   Article 14 of the Convention   Since the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 had the same factual basis as the complaint under Article 11, the Court considered that no separate examination of it was necessary.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary drafted by the Registry is not binding on the Court.