CASE OF THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

No violation of Art. 11;No violation of Art. 14

George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant party , based in south - west GPE ( in an area known as the GPE region or the geographic region of LOC ) , was initially founded in DATE . It was declared unconstitutional by ORG on DATE and , as a result , dissolved .

The relevant developments up to DATE are described in detail in paragraphs QUANTITY of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG PIRIN and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . In that judgment the ORG found that the applicant party ’s dissolution had been in breach of LAW ( ibid . , § § DATE ) .

After the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG PIRIN and Others ( cited above ) became final , on DATE , the applicant party ’s followers decided to apply for reregistration of the party , considering that this would be the best way of expunging the consequences of the violation of LAW ( since under NORP law there is no possibility of reopening proceedings before ORG ) .

On DATE , in line with the procedure envisaged in the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the party ’s founding committee published a founding declaration in GPE , a national newspaper , announcing that the party ’s founding meeting would be held on DATE .

The meeting took place as planned .

On DATE the applicant party ’s founders applied to ORG ( “ GPE градски съд ” ) for registration . They enclosed with the application the original of the founding declaration and its published copy , a certificate attesting to the uniqueness of the party ’s name , minutes of the founding meeting , signed by the meeting ’s chairman and minutetaker , a copy of the party ’s constitution , notarised signature samples of the members of the party ’s representative body , notarised declarations vouching for the authenticity of the lists of the party ’s founders and members and of its constitution , a sample of the party ’s seal , a list of the founders having signed membership declarations and copies of those declarations , and a list of the party ’s members ( CARDINAL individuals ) .

After the application was filed , a copy of the list of the party ’s founding members was apparently made available to the police and the prosecuting authorities in PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and some other localities in the GPE region . The police started systematically checking the names , the identities and the personal data of the individuals concerned . They also summoned a large number of those individuals , questioned them about their involvement with the party , and obtained from some of them declarations denying any connection with the applicant party . Following this operation , the police drew up a detailed report pointing to a number of alleged irregularities in the party ’s formation , such as failures to indicate the full names , full and correct addresses and personal identity numbers of the founders in some membership declarations , as well as the facts that some founders were living abroad , were members of other parties , or were minors or mentally ill . It also contained allegations , based on interviews with the individuals concerned and other inquiries by the police , that they had been put on the list without their knowledge or against the payment of money .

NORP The police additionally commissioned a graphology expert to check the texts of the membership declarations and the signatures featuring on them . On DATE the expert drew up a detailed report which said that the texts of a number of declarations had been filled in by the same people , but that the signatures were those of separate people ( all of whom he identified by name and citizen identification number ) . He also said that the signatures of CARDINAL individuals on the membership declarations differed from the corresponding signatures on the list of members .

The Sofia City Court examined the application at a hearing held on DATE . A prosecutor of ORG , who participated in the proceedings ex officio , produced the abovementioned reports , orders by the prosecuting authorities in PERSON and PERSON for the carrying out of preliminary inquiries , and sixtysix declarations obtained during the earlier police operation and purportedly establishing that the individuals who had made them had no links with the applicant party .

Some of the declarations contained the following statements : “ I am not and have never been a member of ORG PIRIN ; I made the decision to sign [ the membership declaration ] off the top of my head , I have not received anything in return , and I was not coerced into doing it ” ; “ I declare I have nothing to do with the GPE organisation ORG PIRIN . In no way do I support their separatist ideas . The fact that I signed the petition does not in any way mean that I support their ideas ” ; “ I declare that I have never been a member and am not a member of the illegal FAC ” .

Counsel for the party ’s founders requested an adjournment to acquaint himself with the newly presented evidence . The court turned the request down , allowing counsel to peruse the documents during TIME . When the hearing resumed , counsel for the party ’s founders objected to the admission of the CARDINAL reports in evidence and sought leave to present additional evidence : the membership applications of the persons whose names featured in the declarations presented by the prosecutor , and the missing personal identity numbers and addresses of the founders . The court denied leave , saying that the evidence sought to be adduced was not required under the DATE LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . It also said that it would rule on the admissibility of the prosecutor ’s evidence in its judgment .

In a memorial filed after the hearing the prosecutor argued that the registration request should be rejected as , firstly , most of the founders had not personally filled in , but merely signed , their membership declarations , as shown by the expert report . Secondly , some of the members of the party ’s governing bodies featured in TIME of the founding meeting with CARDINAL names only , which made it difficult to identify them . Thirdly , there was no indication that a properly constituted ballot committee had duly checked the number of participants in the founding meeting . All of this showed that the founding meeting had been irregular and its resolutions void . Moreover , the sixtysix declarations showed that a number of the purported founders of the party were in fact no such thing . There were also a number of technical irregularities in the founding instruments . Lastly , there were indications that a number of purported founders had agreed to become members without really wanting to or understanding the implications . The party had therefore been founded in breach of , among other provisions , LAW , which enshrined negative freedom of association .

In a countermemorial counsel for the party ’s founders submitted , inter alia , that the facts the prosecutor sought to prove through the evidence he had adduced could be established only within the framework of separate contentious proceedings . Noncontentious registration proceedings were not a suitable forum for resolving such issues . Even if CARDINAL were to admit that there were certain irregularities in the membership declarations or the lists , this was not reason enough to hold that the number of founders had not in fact been attained . The sixtysix declarations presented by the prosecutor had to be discounted , inter alia because their sincerity was highly doubtful as they appeared to have been made under pressure from the police . That could be seen from the content of some of the declarations . Most of the irregularities noted in the police report were trivial or irrelevant and , in view of the limited number of individuals concerned – fiftyeight – did not cast doubt on the fact that the party had CARDINAL members , as required by law . Lastly , there was no indication that the party ’s formation had been in breach of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; on the contrary , it was consonant with the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG PIRIN and Others ( cited above ) .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG refused to enter the applicant party in the register of political parties . It held as follows :

“ ... In an application ... of DATE the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON asked [ this court ] to enter in the register of political parties the newly founded party ORG – PIRIN . ...

The certificate attesting to the uniqueness of the name , [ issued by the registry of ORG ] , shows that it was issued for a political party named ORG ILINDEN – PARTY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF THE POPULATION .

A founding declaration has been produced , as required under section ORG ) of [ the DATE LAW ] . However , it can not be individualised , as there is no information in the file about the ‘ initiative committee’ of ‘ CARDINAL enfranchised NORP ORG who have adopted it , as required under subsection CARDINAL of this section . The declaration says that they are ‘ a group’ but the evidence does not allow the court to ascertain their number . The declarations under section ORG ) of [ the same LAW ] do not contain information about the membership of the initiative committee , i.e. such declarations are lacking .

It can be seen from the enclosed minutes of DATE that on that date a founding meeting of the ‘ political party PERSON was held . At the beginning of the meeting a ballot committee was elected , whose membership can not be ascertained , as the individuals mentioned feature with their first and family names only and there is no further information about them . In addition , there is no report by this committee relating its findings which are mentioned only in the minutes . The individualisation of persons with CARDINAL names only also affects the procedures for electing a Leadership , a ORG and an ORG . The [ citizen identification numbers ] of the members are not set out either .

An uncertified copy of the [ party ’s ] constitution has been produced . It is not clear whether this is the constitution that was adopted at the founding meeting or the constitution mentioned in the notarised declaration vouching for its authenticity .

No graphic depictions of the symbols of the party have been submitted . They have merely been described in clause CARDINAL of the constitution : ‘ the party ’s flag is red , with a golden sun and a golden inscription ‘ UMO Ilinden – PIRIN’ , and the party ’s sign , comprising CARDINAL GPE mountain peaks with a sun rising between them , yellow with a blue background , with a white edelweiss at the foot of the hills .

Lists and declarations of the founding members , said by the applicants to be CARDINAL in number , have been presented , as required under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( ORG ) in conjunction with LAW [ of the DATE LAW ] . The expert report presented by the [ ORG ] shows that CARDINAL of the declarations were filled in by the same QUANTITY that it is logical to conclude that CARDINAL founding members did not personally fill in their declarations , as required by law . The report was contested by counsel for the applicants . The court gives credence to this piece of evidence , as handwriting [ recognition ] demands special skills and , although it is clear to the naked eye that the declarations in volume CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL to CARDINAL [ of the case file ] have been filled in with the same handwriting , the court itself would not be able to make legally binding findings on this point , because this requires special qualifications and skills , which are in the experts’ province . The court also gives credence to the expert report because it was made by ORG , bears the ORG ’s seal and the signature of Dr [ S.B. ] – head of the ‘ GPE offences , photography and ORG department , and is thus an official document .

The court does not take into account the CARDINAL individual declarations presented by [ ORG ] , although they tend to show that the procedure for the formation of the party was not especially perfect . As correctly argued by counsel for the applicants in his brief , their number could not influence the number of the [ party ’s ] members required under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ the DATE LAW ] .

The presented list of the party ’s members is inaccurate and incorrect : for instance , in volume CARDINAL of the evidence – pages CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the names of CARDINAL persons are listed , but without saying for what purpose their names and personal data are listed ; pages CARDINAL to CARDINAL , listing CARDINAL persons , are presented as an uncertified copy and do not make it clear for what purpose the names and personal data are given ; pages CARDINAL to CARDINAL and CARDINAL to CARDINAL , concerning CARDINAL people , are presented in an uncertified copy , on page CARDINAL there are CARDINAL persons with incomplete addresses , page CARDINAL features CARDINAL person identified by his first name only , without a [ citizen identification number ] and address , the same on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and so on .

On the basis of these findings of fact the court makes the following findings of law :

The application was made under LAW ] in conjunction with section CARDINAL of [ the DATE LAW ] and has given rise to noncontentious proceedings . In such proceedings the registering court must check whether the application is formally valid and whether it is wellfounded .

Article CARDINAL of [ the Code ] governs the registration of all types of legal persons which by law are required to be registered by a court . According to section CARDINAL [ of the LAW ] , a political party is registered in the special register kept by ORG on the basis of a special application by its representative body . To determine whether the application is wellfounded , the registering court has to check whether the facts sought to be registered are indeed subject to registration and whether they have validly taken place .

The application is admissible , as it was filed by the members of the leadership of the political party ORG , who , according to clause CARDINAL ) of its constitution , represent it and are therefore the proper applicants .

The application is unfounded for the following reasons :

Section CARDINAL of [ the DATE LAW ] provides that each enfranchised NORP citizen may join the subscription , up until the founding meeting , by personally filling in and signing an individual membership declaration , based on a model adopted by the initiative committee . Through this declaration the citizens express their personal wish to be members of the political party , and declare that they accept its main principles and goals , as set out in its founding declaration , and that they are not members of another political party . The [ members of ] the initiative committee must also fill in such a declaration ...

For a valid membership to arise , there must be ‘ an initiative of CARDINAL enfranchised NORP citizens who form an initiative ORG , which adopts the founding declaration to be signed by the founders . A founding declaration has been produced , but the available evidence does not show that the initiative committee consists of CARDINAL NORP citizens . The expression ‘ group of ORG , used in the declaration ( page CARDINAL of the case file ) does not establish the characteristics of these individuals ( enfranchised NORP citizens ) and thus the quorum required under LAW ) of [ the DATE LAW ] ; moreover , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of the same LAW ] expressly requires the initiative committee to fill in the declaration as well . This court does not find it established that this formality , which is a necessary prerequisite for membership , has been completed .

Even assuming that the founding declaration is in compliance with the law , the model declaration adopted by the initiative committee should still be filled in and signed personally DATE section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ the DATE LAW ] . CARDINAL of the submitted CARDINAL declarations have not been filled in personally , i.e. CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cumulative prerequisites , mandatory under the law , has not been complied with . The court would not comment on the authenticity of the signatures , about which there are doubts . The expert report says that there are differences between the signatures of the same persons in the declarations and in the lists featuring their names . This logically leads to the conclusion that there are CARDINAL proper founding declarations , in breach of the requirements of CARDINAL , subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( ORG ) , of [ the DATE LAW ] .

The above shows that the founding meeting was attended by CARDINAL founders and that there has been no valid adoption of the [ party ’s ] constitution , as required under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ abovementioned ] Act . A quorum is established on the basis of these very founding declarations , as there is no legal requirement for each founder to personally fill in his name and personal data in the lists . It can be seen from the founding meeting ’s TIME that a ballot committee was elected , but it did not draw up a report ; TIME feature only the first and the family names of its members and for this reason they can not be identified , nor their responsibility engaged . This is why the court can not find that the statement in TIME that a quorum was attained does not need to be proven .

A quorum establishes lawful representation ; it is a prerequisite for a collective body validly to adopt resolutions . Each of the members is bound to all the others who have agreed to the [ party ’s ] constitution . This instrument binds the members of a legal person to act in a certain way , in pursuit of common goals . A legal person ’s resolutions are legal acts emanating from its bodies and entailing legal consequences for all members of a given community . A necessary prerequisite for the adoption of resolutions by collective bodies ( in the instant case , a political party ) is the quorum – the mandatory number of persons corresponding to the requirements of [ the DATE LAW ] – of NORP citizens who have capacity to act , who are not disenfranchised , and who have to be present to adopt a valid resolution . To be legitimate , resolutions of collective bodies have to comprise a certain number of identical acts by persons having capacity to act . The lack of the legally required quorum leads to resolutions which have not been adopted by consensus .

From a legal point of view , the entire procedure for duly forming a legal person has been vitiated .

The presence of this defect is in itself sufficient to deny the political party registration ; moreover , it can not be made good without calling and holding a new founding meeting .

To achieve precision and give full reasons for its ruling , this court considers that the remaining circumstances required for the lawful formation of a legal person must be analysed as well .

It is questionable whether the applicants have adduced in evidence a constitution . The enclosed copy of a constitution is not certified and there is no indication that it is indeed the authentic constitution of the party , as claimed in the notarised declaration of its ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW enumerates the minimum contents of each party ’s constitution : the name , the symbols , the seat , the goals , the rules governing its organisation and activities , the manner of becoming a member and ceasing to be one , the rights and the obligations of the members , and the manner in which the party is to be wound up . The party ’s name or acronym can not match those of another party . Nor is it possible to supplement these with words , letters , figures , numbers or other signs . LAW bars parties from using in their symbols the coat of arms or the flag of GPE or another ORG , or religious signs and images . In this connection , [ the court must ] verify compliance with both the [ DATE ] LAW and , mutatis mutandis , the applicable provisions of DATE ] FAC ( as stated in paragraph CARDINAL of the concluding provisions of the [ DATE ] LAW ) .

Concerning the name . A certificate attesting to the uniqueness of the name ORG ILINDEN – PARTY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF THE POPULATION has been presented . This name has been written this way only in the founding declaration published in the newspaper ORG and in clause CARDINAL of the constitution . Everywhere else , in all evidence , the name features as ORG PIRIN . Counsel for the applicants ... says on page CARDINAL of his brief that ‘ there is a separate organisation ORG , which , although having similar ideas to those of ORG PIRIN , is a separate organisation’ . It can be seen from clause CARDINAL of the constitution that the abbreviated version of the name will be written on the party ’s symbol – its flag – and will also appear on the party ’s seal . However , this name is contrary to section CARDINAL , subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , of the [ DATE ] ORG , which provides that ‘ the name must clearly show the legal person ’s GPE and that it ‘ must not be ORG . There is a discrepancy between the unique name featuring on ORG certificate and the name used in the evidence . The shortened name could confuse third parties , firstly because it concerns ‘ a separate organisation ORG , secondly because the acronym ORG could be wrongly deciphered , and [ finally because ] a clear indication of the legal person ’s type is missing .

Concerning the symbols . The failure to produce the graphic depictions of the symbols described in clause CARDINAL of the constitution precludes a categorical conclusion about their conformity with the law . The seal , however , shows that the ‘ GPE mentioned in clause CARDINAL is in fact the sixteenray stylised star known as ORG or ORG . It was discovered during archaeological excavations in the vicinity of the village of LOC ( formerly ORG ) in LOC and was depicted on the golden larnax found in DATE by Professor PERSON in a royal tomb dating from the time of LOC . Professor PERSON described the symbol as a ‘ star’ , a ‘ PERSON or a ‘ ORG . Following the discovery of the larnax ( box ) , ORG was widely adopted by NORP as a symbol of continuity between ancient NORP culture and modern GPE . Nowadays the symbol is popular in GPE . ORG on a blue background is commonly used as an official emblem of the CARDINAL peripheries , the prefectures and the municipalities of the region of GPE . Thus , the blue flag with ORG appeared in DATE . The symbol was also adopted by the large NORP diaspora , and later , after the disintegration of GPE , the independent GPE displayed ORG on its new flag . ORG became a source of controversies both within GPE and in its relations with neighbouring GPE . The flag – a red rectangle with the star in DATE became a major issue and the subject of extensive political discussions between the CARDINAL sides . NORP objections led to the flag being banned from use in a variety of international organisations , including ORG , the Olympic Games and the representations of GPE in GPE and GPE . In DATE ORG adopted a declaration designating ORG as an official NORP national symbol . In DATE GPE lodged a request with ORG ) for exclusive intellectual property rights to ORG .

From a legal standpoint , the symbols described in clause CARDINAL of the [ party ’s ] constitution are contrary to section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW .

Concerning the rules governing the organisation and the activities of the political party – the [ DATE LAW ] does not lay down detailed regulations for this type of legal person . This calls for subsidiary application of the [ DATE LAW ] . Political parties are subject to all rules in chapters I and II , concerning the types of legal persons , and , more specifically , part one , concerning associations , as well as in chapter III , concerning associations acting in the public interest . In assessing the rules governing the [ party ’s ] organisation and activities , the court must equally take into account the provisions of the LAW , which lay down guiding principles which are relevant for the specific areas of legal regulation or for the activities of those subject to the law .

Each corporate legal person has internal rules and they are CARDINAL of its essential characteristics . The enclosed constitution sets out the main structures of the party and their manner of operation . The supreme body is ORG , consisting of delegates ( clause CARDINAL ) , elected by the local sections ( clause CARDINAL ) ) . The calling of the meetings of this body is entrusted to ORG , which is in turn summoned by the Leadership or on the motion of CARDINAL of its members . The founders intentionally avoided a clear exposition of the manner in which ORG may be called , with a view to [ preventing ] disputes on this point . The question of delegates is not well regulated in terms of what the delegate quota is , or [ what part of ] the membership , nor which delegates have been duly elected . Nor is it clear on the basis of what principle ORG fixes the territory of each section – clause CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the constitution . This in practice prevents the court from exercising the judicial scrutiny , required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the [ DATE LAW ] , of the lawfulness of the supreme body ’s resolutions and their conformity with the [ party ’s ] constitution , pursuant to applications made under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ same LAW ] by the party ’s members and bodies , or by the public prosecutor . In such proceedings , the court must of necessity review the procedure for calling [ a meeting of the party ’s bodies ] and must determine its lawfulness .

The [ DATE ] ORG provides that there must be a possibility of calling [ a meeting of ] the governing body on the direct initiative of CARDINAL of the association ’s members . Where such a meeting has not been called , the Act lays down a judicial procedure for calling [ a meeting of this body ] pursuant to a written request by the members . The applicant party ’s constitution does not provide for such a possibility .

In his memorial counsel for the applicants says that ‘ the registration of the party ORG would be in execution of a judgment of DATE of ORG , which became final on DATE and in which ORG analysed in detail all aspects of ORG PIRIN ’s activities prior to its dissolution and held that the party ’s dissolution had been unlawful as it was contrary to the essential principles of freedom of association’ .

In their memorial the Sofia City Prosecutor ’s Office submit that the breaches of Articles CARDINAL § DATE of the [ LAW ] have been unequivocally established ; those provisions lay down the principle that parties facilitate the formation and the expression of the political will of the citizens , who have the right to freely associate . The prosecuting authorities argue that the evidence shows the applicant party is not based on the free will of the citizens , but that some have been made members against their will or without being aware for what purpose they had filled in declarations – i.e. without information , and in this sense ‘ the party in issue is not based on the free will of the citizens , nor does it form or express their political will’ . In the Prosecutor ’s Office ’s view , the facts point to a breach of LAW ] which , when providing that everyone has the right to freedom of association , ‘ undoubtedly intends this to depend on the free will of the individual , not on the decisions of others to include him in a specific association , in this case a political party’ .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( h ) of [ LAW ] provides that the judgments of ORG may constitute grounds for reopening domestic proceedings which have ended in a final judgment . However , it is clear that the situation in the case at hand does not fall within the ambit of that provision .

A fortiori , the violations found by the [ ORG Rights ] should not be allowed to occur in pending proceedings . Because the possibility that the final decision ( which is the ultimate goal ) of a set of proceedings will be set aside would render these proceedings meaningless .

The [ Convention ] has precedence over domestic ( national ) legislation that contravenes it – LAW of [ LAW ] . It should however not run counter to the present wording of [ the LAW ] . This is because LAW ( until DATE , § CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] provides that the concluding of international treaties requiring amendments to [ LAW ] has to be preceded by such amendments . This follows from the reasons given by ORG in its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE .

ORG is not competent to give instructions to the GPE to take specific measures to comply with their obligations under [ the Convention ] – [ see ] the judgments in the cases of PERSON [ v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ] , PERSON [ v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ] , LOC [ v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ] , etc .

The [ ORG ] judgments analyse a specific case ( whether specific facts amount to a violation of [ the Convention ] ) . For this reason , the court does not consider that those judgments may directly determine the outcome of a future case . The instant judgment is based on new facts and evidence , gathered in line with the requirements of [ DATE ] in the present proceedings . In other words , only the principles emerging from the [ ORG ] judgments are binding and the applicants can not request automatic registration merely because their fundamental rights have been restricted in the past , for which they have been awarded just satisfaction .

In conclusion , freedom of association is guaranteed by [ the LAW ] , but only if the legal requirements for association in its various forms – [ under the DATE ] LAW , [ the DATE ] LAW , [ and DATE ] LAW – have been complied with .

In view of the foregoing , the court finds that the political party has not been duly formed and for this reason its application for registration is to be denied as unfounded . ”

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( “ NORP касационен съд ” ) . They argued , inter alia , that the admission of the expert report in evidence had been a serious breach of the rules of procedure , as any doubts about the authenticity or the probative value of the documents submitted in support of the registration request should have been resolved in separate contentious proceedings . ORG denial of leave to the applicants to adduce further evidence had also been in breach of the rules of procedure , had rendered the proceedings unfair , and had prevented them from proving they had complied with the requirements of the DATE LAW . These procedural errors had had a material impact on GPE findings of fact . Furthermore , that court ’s ruling that membership declarations must be filled in by the member in person was too rigid and unduly restrictive of the freedom of association of the party ’s founders .

After hearing the appeal on CARDINAL DATE , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по т. д. № CARDINAL/ DATE г. , ORG , I т. о. ) ORG upheld the Sofia City Court ’s judgment in the following terms :

“ ... [ This court ] considers ... that ORG erred by admitting in evidence the expert report contested by the applicants . This report is in fact a private expert report and not an official document , as wrongly held by the [ ORG ] . This entailed a breach of the rules of evidence . ... However , that breach was not material , as it was not the only ground which led to the [ ORG ] refusal to register [ the party ] . That court found that the produced founding declaration – the first element of the complex of events leading to a political party ’s formation ... – was vitiated . The founding declaration can not be individualised , as it does not emanate from CARDINAL enfranchised NORP citizens , as required by the law ( section CARDINAL [ of the DATE LAW ] ) , but from a ‘ group of ORG , and that ‘ group of ORG can not be individualised , nor their number ascertained . There is no information in declarations under section ORG ) of [ the same LAW ] about the size and the membership of the initiative committee , because such declarations are lacking . Therefore , [ ORG ] decisive conclusion that the [ applicant party ] was not validly formed was based on lapses in the founding declaration presented , which fails to meet the imperative requirements of the law – sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) [ of the DATE LAW ] . The incompleteness of the lists , noted by the [ GPE ] , was an additional and not a decisive ground for the refusal , and for this reason its being based on a breach of the rules of procedure is not material and does not vitiate the impugned judgment . By the same token , [ this court ] finds unavailing the arguments in the appeal about the rigid application of the rule in LAW [ of the LAW ] in relation to the handwritten declarations , which allegedly led to a restriction of the exercise of basic political rights . LAW requirement for a personally filled in and signed declaration does not restrict or discriminate against illiterate or blind individuals , as the law deals with such eventualities in LAW ] , which is also applicable in the instant proceedings ... If the law requires personally filled in and signed declarations LAW CARDINAL [ of the DATE LAW ] , the court is bound to apply it correctly and uniformly LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ of the above Code ] . [ ORG ] did precisely that ; therefore , the complaints that it erred in the application of LAW [ of LAW ] are unfounded .

The complaints that [ the ORG ] breached the rules of procedure by refusing the applicants leave to adduce further evidence rectifying the irregularities in the initially submitted documents , such as wrong or incomplete addresses , [ citizen identification numbers ] , [ and ] proof of the truth of circumstances required by law to be declared , are unfounded . It is true that the proceedings are noncontentious , and that the court has to check of its own motion whether the prerequisites for issuing the decision sought are in place . It is also true that the court may of its own motion gather evidence , and instruct the applicants to produce evidence in corroboration of their claims ( Article CARDINAL [ of LAW ] ) . However , the instant case concerns omissions of the founders , which may not be rectified subsequently .

The complaints that the impugned judgment was wrong on the merits are likewise unfounded . As already noted , the requirement of LAW [ of the DATE LAW ] that the declarations be personally filled in and signed is a requirement of the law , and the court is bound to apply the law as it is , correctly and uniformly LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ of the abovementioned Code ] . Regardless of what has been said above , [ this court ] reiterates that the decisive ground for refusing registration stems from the vitiated declaration of the founding committee , found defective partly because of the lack of declarations personally made by [ the party ’s ] members . The lack of such declarations and the vitiated lists and the ensuing lack of proof that the meeting had a quorum are thus not , in themselves , independent grounds for a refusal . The lack of graphic symbols and of a report of the ballot committee are not independent grounds for the refusal [ either ] – they were noted by [ ORG ] in addition to its decisive conclusion about the lack of a founding declaration . It is a separate issue that [ GPE ] found further omissions in the [ party ’s ] formation which were not mentioned or commented upon in the appeal .

In view of the foregoing and having dealt with all grounds of appeal [ raised by the applicants ] , [ this court ] finds that [ the Sofia City Court ’s ] conclusions that [ the applicant party ] was not validly formed and that its registration request was unfounded are correct . For this reason , the impugned judgment is to be upheld ... ”

On DATE , DATE after the ORG gave its judgment , there was a meeting in GPE between the NORP and NORP Ministers of Foreign Affairs . The news agencies reported that during the meeting GPE ’s then Foreign Minister , Mr GPE , said : “ [ T]he judgment of ORG in GPE does not entail the registration of a party . GPE was ordered to pay a fine ; it paid it and there are no further legal consequences . I believe that GPE has fully executed the prescriptions of ORG and there are no outstanding matters ” .

NORP In DATE the group of the Greens / European Free Alliance in ORG proposed an amendment to the report on GPE ’s accession to ORG , suggesting that it should include text calling on the NORP authorities “ to prevent any further obstruction to the registration of the political party of the ethnic NORP and to put an end to all forms of discrimination and harassment visàvis that minority ” . A number of NORP observer members of ORG objected to that amendment . The political party Attack ( “ PERSON ) proposed a draft declaration , to be adopted by GPE ’s ORG and saying that the proposal of ORG NORP was a gross provocation and amounted to meddling in the country ’s internal affairs . Attack ’s leader , PERSON , was reported by the press to have said on DATE that he saw a problem in the fact that ORG registration request had been turned down by the courts on technical grounds . In his view , “ FAC ha[d ] to be rejected because of their separatism and anticonstitutional activities , not because of formalities ” .

In a statement published on DATE a member of GPE ’s ORG for ORG said that “ [ CARDINAL NORP court showed that no NORP parties may be registered in GPE . And in a country ruled by law judicial decisions have to be complied with . ”

NORP In DATE the second applicant , PERSON , and another member of the applicant party approached in turn the mayors of the towns of PERSON and PERSON with requests to rent a municipal hall in which to hold the party ’s founding meeting . After initially showing willingness to accommodate their request , in a letter of DATE the mayor of PERSON turned it down , saying that the hall in question did not meet the safety requirements set by the local fire department . The mayor of PERSON did not reply to the request .

The applicant party ’s founders then decided to hold the founding meeting outdoors . It took place on DATE in the area PERSON livadi , located in the territory of the municipality of PERSON . According to the applicants , it was attended by CARDINAL and eightyfive people , all of whom filled in declarations stating that they wished to join ORG .

On DATE the applicant party applied for registration to ORG . It presented the founding declaration , TIME of the founding meeting , the party ’s constitution , membership declarations signed by CARDINAL founding members , a list of those founding members , the list of CARDINAL members compiled in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and a notarised declaration of the members of the party ’s management body to the effect that those lists were authentic . It also produced a copy of a letter of DATE from ORG to the permanent representative of GPE to ORG .

The Sofia City Court examined the application at a hearing held on DATE . The prosecutor who was present ex officio argued that the application should be refused because the party ’s goals were not those of a political party , but rather those of an ordinary association . He also said that the list of members was not authentic , as it was the same as the one presented in the previous reregistration proceedings , and that the minutes of the founding meeting had not been signed by all CARDINAL and eightyfive persons present .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the application in the following terms :

“ ... In the course of the proceedings the court noted that the applicants have not complied with the requirements of [ the DATE LAW , whose ] section CARDINAL provides that [ a political party ] can be founded on the initiative of CARDINAL enfranchised NORP citizens , who have to form an initiative committee . This [ committee ] has to adopt a written founding declaration . The founding declaration of DATE presented was signed by seventysix people , who did not however personally fill in and sign declarations under LAW [ of LAW ] . Moreover , according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of this LAW ] , the declaration has to be drawn up by the initiative committee . Since evidence to that effect has not been produced , the court can not be certain that this initiative committee has indeed held meetings and that such resolutions have in fact been adopted . TIME the founding meeting of DATE say that [ it ] was attended by CARDINAL adult NORP citizens who had personally filled in and signed declarations under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of the above Act ] . The court fails to see how it was possible to obtain CARDINAL declarations by adult enfranchised NORP citizens in DATE ( that is , from the committee ’s declaration of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) , so as to allow the holding of the founding meeting on DATE . It is true that section CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] provides that a political party is formed at a founding meeting held in the territory of GPE not DATE after the date on which the founding declaration has been adopted . However , in the instant case the court can not accept that CARDINAL people who had personally filled in their declarations under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of the LAW ] were able to get together to hold a [ founding meeting ] in such a short time . Moreover , the minutes are signed by the president of the meeting and the minutetaker , whereas they should have been personally signed by all founders . As noted above , there is no evidence , under section ORG ) [ of the LAW ] , that [ the initiative committee ] has adopted a model declaration whereby each enfranchised NORP citizen may , by personally filling it in and signing it , join the party . This declaration has to be ready before the holding of the founding meeting . It should contain the information required under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of the LAW ] . The presented lists of CARDINAL names , [ citizen identification numbers ] and addresses do not demonstrate to the court that the persons who feature thereon are members of the party , as the lists are not accompanied by personally filled in and signed declarations ( see the presented list of party founders ) . This court does not know whether these persons are aware that they are members of this party , or whether this is simply a list intending to prove before the court that the requirements of section PERSON ) [ of the LAW ] have been complied with . It must here be noted that [ the court ] received from [ ORG ] a letter informing it that [ the Ministry ] had received a letter from the head of the department for the execution of the judgments of ORG , PERSON , in which she asked whether it was possible for the court to accept , when examining the application for the [ applicant party ’s ] registration , the list of CARDINAL members presented in [ the previous registration proceedings ] in which the court , whose judgment was upheld by [ ORG ] , refused to register the party . This letter leads the court to conclude that the list produced in the instant proceedings is the same as the one presented [ in the previous registration proceedings ] . The use of the same list is in breach of LAW § DATE of the [ LAW , which provide that ] parties facilitate the formation and expression of the political will of citizens , who may freely associate . Each application for inclusion in the register of political parties means , first , sharing the ideas of a group of enfranchised citizens who use democratic ways and means for attaining their political goals , set out in [ the political party ’s ] platform , and , second , that the [ party ’s ] formation , resolutions [ and ] activity should be in conformity with the law . The use of the same evidence in separate cases can not therefore be accepted by the court . The evidence presented in [ the previous registration proceedings ] can not be used in the instant proceedings .

The presented constitution [ of the party ] does not make clear its political goals and tasks . The ones mentioned in clauses CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the constitution do not characterise the organisation as a political party within the meaning of [ the DATE LAW ] and LAW ] . Political parties are ORG organisations through which they take part in the political life of GPE . The thing which sets them apart from other ORG associations is , according to LAW ] , that only they may pursue political goals or carry out political activities . These activities are defined by LAW of LAW ] and LAW of the DATE LAW ] as ones facilitating the formation of the ORG political will , which is the ORG will to participate in government . The carrying out of political activities is the main criterion for distinguishing [ political parties ] from other ORG associations . In this connection , it should be observed that in their constitutions political parties must clearly declare their goals and tasks and the ways of attaining them . The goals and tasks outlined in the [ applicant party ’s ] constitution are limited , have an optional character and do not comply with the abovementioned requirements . For the court , the goals set out in clause CARDINAL of the constitution are rather those of a nonprofit association ... , not of a political party ... It should [ also ] be noted that a political party bearing the same name and having the same goals was registered by ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ... After that [ , in DATE , ORG ] declared that party unconstitutional and it was struck out of the register . The [ ORG ] judgment shows that not only the name and the political goals of this party are identical to those stated by the applicants in the instant proceedings , but that the [ party ’s ] leadership consists of the same individuals . The court can not therefore be sure that , having the same political goals and leaders , the party will not meet the same fate , that is , be faced with an application [ for its banning ] to [ ORG ] . The court observes that the constitutionality of a political party must be judged on the basis of its activities . The political goals set out in clause CARDINAL of the constitution show that this is a party which is active in a specific part of the territory of GPE , which runs counter to both the [ DATE LAW ] and LAW ] ( see clause CARDINAL , points CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ party ’s ] constitution ) . Moreover , clause CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the political goals of the party mentions good neighbourly relations in the LOC , in LOC and in all countries inhabited by ethnic NORP . There is no distinct NORP ethnos in GPE . The same goes for the party ’s name .

To enter a party in the register this court requires precise and clear political goals , as well as ways and means of attaining them . Moreover , [ a party ] must produce in evidence CARDINAL personally filled in and signed declarations under section CARDINAL ) [ of the DATE LAW ] fully to convince the court that these citizens are truly aware that they are members of a specific political party , that they share its political goals , express their personal will to be its members and declare that they accept the party ’s main principles and goals , as set out in its founding declaration , and that they are not members of another political party . These requirements apply without exception to all political parties .

For these reasons , the [ applicant party ’s ] application must be rejected and the court refuses to enter it in the special register . ”

On DATE the applicant party appealed to ORG . In a brief filed on DATE it argued , inter alia , that its registration would be consonant with the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG PIRIN and Others ( cited above ) . In that connection , it made reference to the relevant decisions of ORG .

After hearing the appeal on DATE , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по т. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , GPE т. о. ) ORG upheld the Sofia City Court ’s judgment in the following terms :

“ ... The impugned judgment is correct and is to be upheld .

Having reviewed the evidence in the case , [ this court ] finds that the refusal to register [ the applicant party ] was lawful . Section CARDINAL [ of the DATE LAW ] contains an exhaustive list of the documents which need to be filed with the court for the registration of an association of NORP citizens founded for the purpose of forming and expressing the people ’s political will through elections or through other democratic means – section CARDINAL [ of the LAW ] . [ This court ] finds that by presenting a list of CARDINAL members which was compiled during a previous founding meeting of [ the applicant party ] and was produced in [ the previous proceedings for its registration ] , the applicants in the instant case failed to comply with the requirements of section CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] . ... [ T]he reason why the law requires a minimum number of documents to be produced for the registration of a political party is to allow the registering court to check whether the procedure for its formation has been followed and whether it has the minimum number of members to guarantee that [ it can be ] a real player on the political scene , whose goals , as endorsed by its members , have public significance and warrant its existence on the country ’s political scene .

[ The case file of the previous registration proceedings ] has not been enclosed with the present case file , but the possible similarity or even match between the goals and the principles adopted at that previous founding meeting and those laid down in the party ’s constitution produced in the instant proceedings can not warrant the conclusion that the list produced in the course of [ the previous registration proceedings ] shows that the requisite number of members of the party seeking registration has really been attained . The underlying idea of the abovecited provision is doubtlessly to ensure that the required number of members who have declared their wish to join the effort to attain the goals set out in the party ’s constitution , adopted at the same founding meeting , has really been attained . From this vantage point , the list of members compiled during a previous founding of the party does not serve the law ’s purpose . The membership of an organisation , including a political one , is a dynamic value , which may increase but also decrease , due to changes in political views – something characteristic of every individual . This dynamic , which doubtlessly also reflects natural biological processes , requires [ the founders ] to establish before the registering court the requisite number of members at the time of the party ’s founding , or at the time when the application for its registration is lodged . It is obvious that in the instant case those requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) have not been complied with owing to the lack of information about the number of persons who have expressed their wish to become members of [ the applicant party and work ] for the attainment of its goals , as agreed at the founding meeting held on DATE and laid down in the constitution adopted by the founders .

The rule in section CARDINAL of [ the DATE LAW ] is imperative . Failure to comply with even CARDINAL of its requirements constitutes sufficient grounds to refuse registration , as the impugned judgment did . Since this court shares the final conclusions at which [ that judgment ] arrived , it considers that it should be upheld . ”

On DATE ORG PIRIN held a national conference . On DATE the second , third , fourth , fifth and sixth applicants lodged with ORG a request for amendments in the party ’s registration . The request was based on the premise that , since this ORG had found the dissolution of the party in DATE to be in breach of LAW , the party had never ceased to exist .

The Sofia City Court held a hearing on DATE . On DATE , apparently treating the request as a normal registration request , it turned it down . It found that the party ’s founders had not enclosed all the necessary documents ( such as a founding declaration , individual membership declarations personally signed by the founders , and notarised samples of the signatures of the party ’s representatives ) showing that the party had been duly formed . It went on to say that this ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG – ORG and Others ( cited above ) had no bearing on the registration proceedings and could not serve as grounds for finding that the party had never ceased to exist .

The second applicant , PERSON , appealed on points of law . He argued that ORG had erred by not giving ORG PIRIN the opportunity to produce all the elements missing from its founding process . The court ’s failure to do so , coupled with its ensuing refusal to register the party , had been in breach of GPE ’s obligation to abide by this ORG ’s judgment in ORG PIRIN and Others ( cited above ) and to heed the instructions given in that connection by ORG .

After hearing the appeal on CARDINAL DATE , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , I т. о. ) ORG upheld the Sofia City Court ’s judgment in the following terms :

“ The subjective registration right is the legally guaranteed possibility to request facts which are subject to registration ( and the changes in such facts ) to be entered in the relevant register . Concrete rights and duties in that respect can arise and evolve only in the manner envisaged by the special statutes governing such matters . In the case at hand , the [ DATE ] LAW lays down certain requirements which need to be met before an application to register a political party can succeed . CARDINAL of those requirements is the obligation under LAW [ of the LAW ] for the applicants to enclose certain documents with their application . Those documents must be produced in order to allow the registering court to ascertain whether the application is admissible and wellfounded . It is the ORG duty to produce them , and they directly relate to the ascertaining of a series of legal acts leading to the formation of a political party . Therefore , the making of an irregular application – such irregularity stemming from a failure to produce the enclosures required by law – is tantamount to a failure to comply with the duty to make a proper application . Moreover , some of the irregularities can not be rectified in the manner and timelimits envisaged by LAW [ of the DATE Code of Civil Procedure ] , because they are indicative of such failures of the [ party ’s ] founders as make the application for its registration illfounded . Although noncontentious proceedings follow the general rules of civil procedure , their specificity requires the court to assess whether the irregularities [ in the application ] can be rectified , and thus make the application successful , because the law requires all prerequisites for the registration of a political party to be in place . The lack of even CARDINAL such prerequisite makes the application illfounded . In the case at hand , the [ lower ] court found that the imperative requirements of the law had not been complied with ( there is no founding declaration ; that declaration has not been published in a DATE newspaper [ , as required by ] section CARDINAL the [ DATE ] LAW ; the mandatory requirements of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of that Act ] have not been complied with ) . Although in their appeal the applicants said that they were ready to adduce fresh evidence , the above defects can not be rectified in the manner and within the timelimit envisaged by Article CARDINAL [ of the DATE Code of Civil Procedure ] , because they presuppose the occurring of concrete facts at the time when the party was being founded . They thus relate to the application ’s wellfoundedness , not to its admissibility . Besides , [ Mr ] PERSON ’s assertion at the hearing on DATE that the applicants do not have any documents other than those already produced leads directly to the conclusion that the appeal is illfounded , because it conflicts with the applicants’ position before the [ lower ] court , where they had to make the requisite procedural steps . Therefore , the [ lower ] court has not breached the rules of procedure and has correctly assessed the application ’s wellfoundedness based on the enclosures submitted by the applicants .

The appellants argued that the above - mentioned breach of the rules of procedure was directly related to the NORP authorities’ obligation , in cooperation with ORG , to determine appropriate ways of ‘ LOC the political party ‘ FAC . They maintained that ORG was bound to execute ORG of DATE . As that judgment had still not been executed , it was necessary to take individual measures allowing the political party to be registered . The applicants’ position was that ORG refusal [ to register the party ] was in breach of ORG and the mandatory instructions of ORG .

The complaint is illfounded .

ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE related , as correctly pointed out by the [ ORG ] , to a breach of LAW flowing from ORG finding in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE that the political party ORG was unconstitutional . That has no bearing on the case at hand , because the refusal to register [ the party ] was based on its failure to comply with the formal requirements of the [ DATE ] LAW . Those requirements apply to all , not only to the appellant . Therefore , the [ lower ] court was right to conclude that ORG Rights’ judgment is irrelevant to the registration request in the case at hand . CARDINAL of the main principles of the law of registration , flowing directly from LAW , is the principle of lawfulness . It requires the authorities examining registration requests to comply strictly with their duties , and requires those who lodge registration requests to comply strictly with theirs . The application of that principle is guaranteed by the strict rules governing the facts which need to be registered , the manner of their registration , the possibility of appealing against the rulings of the registering authorities and the sanctions for failures to comply with registration obligations . Therefore , the ones responsible for complying with registration obligations are the applicants , regardless of their identity , and not other persons , and their failure to do so leads to a refusal to register the requested fact . ”

During its ORG meeting , on CARDINAL and DATE , ORG noted the continuing problems with the registration of the party and invited its ORG to “ examine , in cooperation with the NORP authorities and the applicants , the avenues at the applicants’ disposal with a view to obtaining [ the party ’s ] registration ” ( ORG ) .

During its CARDINAL meeting , held on DATE , ORG “ took note of the complaints of the applicants in the case of ORG PIRIN concerning the outcome of the new proceedings concerning the registration of the political party ” , “ noted the different problems still raised by the issue of the individual measures in the latter case ” and “ invited the NORP authorities in cooperation with the ORG to examine possible solutions to these problems within the framework of the NORP legal order ” ( ORG / PERSON ) .

ORG concluded the examination of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. GPE ) during its QUANTITY meeting , on DATE , by adopting Resolution CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL , the relevant parts of which read :

“ ... Recalling that the violation of the ORG found by ORG in this case concerns an infringement of the freedom of association of an organisation which aims to achieve ‘ the recognition of the NORP minority in ORG due to the dissolution in DATE of its political party , based on considerations of national security ( alleged separatist ideas ) when the applicants had not hinted at any intention to use violence or other undemocratic means to achieve their aims ( violation of LAW ) ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the ORG requires , over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the ORG in its judgments , the adoption by the respondent state , where appropriate :

– of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

– of general measures preventing similar violations ;

Recalling that the obligation of the respondent state regarding the individual measures in this case , implies allowing the applicants to ask for a new registration of their political party in the framework of proceedings which are in accordance with the requirements of the LAW and in particular of LAW ( for further details see the information document ORG / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) ;

Recalling that following the ORG ’s judgment , the applicants requested on CARDINAL occasions before the domestic courts the registration of their political party and that ORG followed the proceedings in question up to their outcome ;

Recalling that it has expressed concerns more particularly as regard the fact that the decision of the firstinstance court on the second request for registration of the applicants’ political party reiterated grounds incriminated by the ORG ;

Stressing in this respect that the judicial decisions relating to the applicants’ third request for registration do not reiterate such grounds and are exclusively based on the noncompliance with the law of the material acts for the constitution of the party and of the related documents to be submitted ;

Having noted with satisfaction the declaration of the government according to which it ‘ sees no obstacle to the applicants’ obtaining the registration of their organisation as a political party on the condition that the requirements of the LAW of the state and the formal requirements of LAW are met , without any grounds such as those incriminated by ORG being opposed to the applicants’ ;

Underlining in this context that the [ DATE ] LAW , as modified in DATE , reduced from CARDINAL the level of members required to form a political party and that this new level seems , in addition , likely to resolve the problems encountered by the applicants in forming their party in conformity of the requirement of the DATE LAW ;

Having considered that in view of the above considerations , it seems that the applicants can at present apply for the registration of their party in proceedings which are in conformity with LAW ;

Having examined also the general measures and in particular the awarenessraising measures taken by the NORP authorities to ensure that applicable domestic law is interpreted in conformity with the LAW and thus to prevent violations similar to that found by ORG ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Noting that the government undertook to continue to organise awarenessraising activities in the field of application of LAW , including visits to ORG of judges in particular from the competent courts ;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment ( see details in Appendix ) ,

DECLARES , having examined the measures taken by the respondent state ( see Appendix ) , that it has exercised its functions under LAW in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case . ”

NORP In an appendix to ORG described the developments set out in paragraphs PERSON above , the amendment to the DATE LAW reducing the membership requirement for a party from CARDINAL to CARDINAL members ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and the ORG ’s declaration cited in the ORG . The appendix also contained a description of the general measures taken by the ORG . Those consisted in the publication and the dissemination of the ORG ’s judgment and of a manual describing the ORG ’s case - law in the area of freedom of association , and in the organising of several training sessions for judges and prosecutors on that topic .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW read as follows :

“ GPE is a ORG governed by the rule of law . It shall be governed in accordance with the LAW and the laws of the country . ”

“ International treaties which have been ratified in accordance with the constitutionally established procedure and promulgated , and have entered into force with respect to GPE , are part of the country ’s domestic law . They shall have precedence over any provisions of domestic legislation which contravene them . ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP Parties shall facilitate the formation of the ORG political will . The manner of forming and dissolving political parties , as well as the conditions pertaining to their activity , shall be established by law .

No political parties shall be formed on an ethnic , racial , or religious basis , nor parties which seek to accede to power by force . ”

“ CARDINAL . Citizens’ associations shall serve to further and safeguard their interests .

Associations ... may not pursue political goals or carry out political activities that are characteristic solely of political parties . ”

“ No one may be persecuted or restricted in his rights because of his views , nor detained or forced to provide information about his or another ’s convictions . ”

“ CARDINAL . Citizens may freely associate .

Organisations whose activities are directed against the country ’s sovereignty or territorial integrity or against the nation ’s unity , or which aim at stirring up racial , national , ethnic or religious hatred , or at violating the rights and freedoms of others , as well as organisations creating secret or paramilitary structures , or which seek to attain their goals through violence , shall be prohibited .

The law shall specify which organisations are subject to registration , the manner of their dissolution , as well as their relations with the ORG . ”

The DATE LAW ( “ ORG за политическите партии ” ) , which came into force on DATE and superseded the DATE LAW , which had in turn superseded the DATE LAW , regulates the formation , registration , organisation , activities and dissolution of political parties ( section CARDINAL ) .

The procedure for the formation of a party is laid down in sections CARDINAL of the LAW . A party is formed on the initiative of CARDINAL enfranchised NORP citizens ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . They must set up an initiative committee , which adopts a written founding declaration setting out the party ’s main goals and principles ( section PERSON ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The committee then publishes this declaration in CARDINAL national DATE newspaper and opens a subscription for founding members ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Every enfranchised NORP citizen may join the subscription by personally filling in and signing an individual membership declaration whose model must be approved by the initiative committee ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . In these membership declarations ( not to be confused with the founding declaration ) prospective members express their wish to become members of the party and declare that they accept its main goals and principles , as set out in the founding declaration ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . They must also declare that they are not members of another party ( ibid . ) , as an individual can not participate in the formation of a party if he or she is already a member of another party ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The initiative committee ’s members must also fill in and sign such membership declarations ( section PERSON ) ) . After the subscription is closed , the party is founded at a founding meeting , which must be held in the territory of GPE not DATE after the adoption of the founding declaration ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The meeting must be attended by CARDINAL NORP citizens who have signed a membership declaration ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The founding meeting adopts the party ’s constitution and elects its managing and controlling bodies ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The party ’s constitution must set out , along with other matters , its name and symbols ; its goals and the ways of attaining them ; its managing and controlling bodies , the manner of calling meetings of these bodies ; their appointment , removal and powers ; the way to become a member and cease to be CARDINAL ; and the PERSON rights and obligations ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The party ’s name and symbols can not be identical to those of another party , even if words , letters , figures , numbers or other signs have been added to them ( section GPE ) ) . Also , the parties’ symbols can not contain or resemble the coat of arms or the flag of GPE or of another State , or religious signs or representations ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

Not DATE after the founding meeting the party has to apply to be entered in a special register kept by ORG . The application must be made by the party ’s managing and representative body ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . With the application must be enclosed ( a ) the founding declaration ; ( b ) the minutes of the founding meeting ; ( c ) the party ’s constitution ; ( d ) a list containing the CARDINAL names , citizen identification numbers , permanent addresses and handwritten signatures of CARDINAL founding members ; ( e ) the individual membership declarations ; ( f ) notarised samples of the signatures of the party ’s representatives ; ( g ) a list containing the CARDINAL names , citizen identification numbers and permanent addresses of CARDINAL members ; ( h ) a notarised declaration by the party ’s leadership to the effect that the constitution and the CARDINAL lists are authentic ; and ( i ) a certificate of uniqueness of the party ’s name , to be obtained form ORG registry ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The Sofia City Court has to examine the application not DATE after it has been lodged , at a public hearing attended by the applicants and a public prosecutor . It must then rule within DATE , by means of a judgment ( section DATE ) . This judgment is subject to appeal before ORG ( section CARDINAL ) ) , which has to dispose of the appeal within DATE , by means of a final judgment ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The party is entered in the register DATE after the judgment allowing its registration has become final ( section DATE ) ) . At that point it becomes a legal person ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The judgment allowing registration is published in ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

In DATE an amendment to section CARDINAL ) reduced to CARDINAL and a CARDINAL the number of people who have to feature on the list of members that needs to be enclosed with the application for registration ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( g ) above ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the amendment ’s transitional and concluding provisions provided that until DATE the prosecuting authorities had to conduct inquiries and seek the dissolution of any political party which did not meet the requirements of section CARDINAL ) of the LAW . Under that section , a political party has to be dissolved if ( a ) its activities systematically breach the LAW ’s requirements , ( b ) its activities are contrary to the LAW , ( c ) for DATE after its latest registration it has not taken part in parliamentary , presidential or local elections , or ( d ) if it has failed , for DATE , to submit the requisite financial reports to ORG .

The DATE LAW ( “ ORG за юридическите лица с нестопанска цел ” ) , which entered into force on DATE and superseded parts of the DATE LAW ( “ ORG за лицата и семейството ” ) , and whose provisions govern all matters not covered by the DATE LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of this LAW ) , regulates the formation , registration , organisation , activities and winding up of nonprofit legal persons , such as associations and foundations ( section CARDINAL ) . Its LAW I lays down certain general rules and principles applying to all types of nonprofit legal persons , its LAW prescribes more detailed rules for associations , and its LAW deals with nonprofit legal persons acting in the public interest .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , a legal person ’s name has to clearly designate its type , and must not be misleading or contrary to good morals .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that an association ’s general meeting may be called at the request of onethird of the members , if need be through an application to the competent court .

The general meeting ’s resolutions are subject to judicial review for lawfulness and conformity with the association ’s rules ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Applications for judicial review may be lodged by any member or body of the association , or by the public prosecutor ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

At the relevant time LAW , along with some statutes , regulated the procedure for entering legal persons , such as companies , associations , foundations and political parties , in special registers kept by the regional courts and ORG . Such registration was made after noncontentious proceedings instituted on the application of the representatives of the legal person concerned ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . In the course of such proceedings the court could gather evidence of its own motion and take into account facts not mentioned by the applicant ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . On DATE the Code was superseded by the DATE Code of Civil Procedure .

ORG ( “ the Venice Commission ” ) made the following recommendations in its LAW and explanatory report on legislation on political parties : some specific issues ( ORG , DATE ) :

“ B. Registration as a necessary step for recognition of an association as a political party , for a party ’s participation in general elections or for public financing of a party does not per se amount to a violation of rights protected under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . Any requirements in relation to registration , however , must be such as are ‘ necessary in a democratic society’ and proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by the measures in question . Countries applying registration procedures to political parties should refrain from imposing excessive requirements for territorial representation of political parties as well as for minimum membership . ...

a. Registration of political parties

... many countries view registration as a necessary step for recognition of an association as a political party , for participation in general elections or for public financing . This practice – as ORG has stated before in its LAW even if it were regarded as a restriction of the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression , would not per se amount to a violation of rights protected under Articles CARDINAL of LAW . The requirements for registration , however , differ from CARDINAL country to another . Registration may be considered as a measure to inform the authorities about the establishment of the party as well as about its intention to participate in elections and , as a consequence , benefit from advantages given to political parties as a specific type of association . Farreaching requirements , however , can raise the threshold for registration to an unreasonable level , which may be inconsistent with the Convention . Any provisions in relation to registration must be such as are necessary in a NORP society and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved by the measures in question . ”

A report adopted by ORG on DATE on the establishment , organisation and activities of political parties on the basis of the replies to a questionnaire ( ORG ) reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Some countries impose on political parties an obligation to go through a registration process . Almost all countries mentioned in the first group in paragraph CARDINAL have to go through a registration process or at least through deposition of their articles of association with the competent authorities of their country . This process is justified by the need of formal recognition of an association as a political party . Some of these additional requirements can differ from CARDINAL country to another :

a ) convocation of the assembly on the establishment of the party ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE and GPE ) ;

b ) establishing articles of association / charter ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

c ) drafting of a programme ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

d ) minimum membership ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

e ) election of the board / presidency / permanent committee ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

f ) permanent address of its offices / leaders ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

g ) principles of internal organisation ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

h ) payment of the registration fee ( GPE and GPE ) ;

i ) NORP signatures attesting certain territorial representation ( GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ; and

j ) publication of information on the establishment of the party in mass media ( GPE ) .

After these requirements are met , a competent body ( Ministry of Justice , for example ) proceeds with official registration . In the case of such countries as , for example , GPE and GPE , the LAW ( articles of association ) are just submitted to the competent authority in order to be added to a special ORG register .

NORP Most countries consider registration as a necessary step for recognition of an association as a political formation . However , some countries , as it has been already mentioned , consider that State registration is a pure formality . For example , in GPE , ORG can not refuse the deposition or a registration of the LAW of a party .

There is another criteria of distinction as to the status given to a party . In some countries registration of such associations is required in order to give a full legal personality to such association . If such registration is not carried out , a party can not have bank accounts , receive founding from public funds or hold property ( GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) .

Certain States have a stricter rule as to the registration process . For example , in GPE , current legislation on political parties imposes a duty on political parties to provide ORG with its membership lists DATE for having its registration reeffected . ”

The explanatory report to LAW No . CARDINAL ( CETS No . CARDINAL ) reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Rapid and full execution of the ORG ’s judgments is vital . It is even more important in cases concerning structural problems , so as to ensure that the ORG is not swamped with repetitive applications . For this reason , ever since the GPE ministerial conference of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( Resolution I ) , it has been considered essential to strengthen the means given in this context to ORG . The Parties to the Convention have a collective duty to preserve the ORG ’s authority DATE and thus the Convention system ’s credibility and effectiveness DATE whenever ORG considers that CARDINAL of the High Contracting Parties refuses , expressly or through its conduct , to comply with the ORG ’s final judgment in a case to which it is party .

Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL accordingly empower ORG to bring infringement proceedings in the ORG ( which shall sit as a Grand Chamber – see new DATE , paragraph b ) , having first served the state concerned with notice to comply . ORG decision to do so requires a qualified majority of CARDINAL of the representatives entitled to sit on the ORG . This infringement procedure does not aim to reopen the question of violation , already decided in the ORG ’s first judgment . Nor does it provide for payment of a financial penalty by a High Contracting Party found in violation of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL . It is felt that the political pressure exerted by proceedings for noncompliance in FAC and by the latter ’s judgment should suffice to secure execution of the ORG ’s initial judgment by the state concerned .

ORG should bring infringement proceedings only in exceptional circumstances . None the less , it appeared necessary to give ORG , as the competent organ for supervising execution of the ORG ’s judgments , a wider range of means of pressure to secure execution of judgments . Currently the ultimate measure available to ORG is recourse to LAW ( suspension of voting rights in ORG , or even expulsion from the Organisation ) . This is an extreme measure , which would prove counterproductive in most cases ; indeed ORG which finds itself in the situation foreseen in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL continues to need , far more than others , the discipline of ORG . The new LAW therefore adds further possibilities of bringing pressure to bear to the existing ones . The procedure ’s mere existence , and the threat of using it , should act as an effective new incentive to execute the ORG ’s judgments . It is foreseen that the outcome of infringement proceedings would be expressed in a judgment of the ORG . ”