European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 47558/10
by Costel POPA
against Romania
lodged on 3 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Costel Popa, is a Romanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Ms N. Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 11 October 2009 the applicant and four other associates brought proceedings before the Bucharest District Court seeking the registration of their association called “EcoPolis” in the Register of Associations and Foundations kept by that court. They also asked the court to grant their association legal personality. The association’s goal declared in its Articles of Association was that of promoting the principles of sustainable development at the level of Romanian public policy.

By an interlocutory judgment of 24 October 2009 the Bucharest District Court granted the association legal personality and ordered its registration in the Register of Associations and Foundations. The court held that the applicant had attached to the application for registration all the lawfully required documents for registration. Moreover, the association’s goal as declared in its Articles of Association complied with the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000.

The Bucharest Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal on points of law against the interlocutory judgment of 24 October 2009. They argued that, according to their interpretation, the association’s declared goal constituted the activity of a political party and political parties could not be registered under the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000.

By a final interlocutory judgment of 10 February 2010 the Bucharest County Court allowed the appeal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and dismissed the applicant’s request for the registration of the association. It held that the goal of the association as declared in its Articles of Association referred to general concepts that might constitute the activity of a political party. Consequently, the association’s declared goal was at odds with the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 which expressly prohibited the registration of political parties under the provisions of the said ordinance.

B.  Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of Government Ordinance no. 26 of 30 January 2000 on associations and foundations are summarised in the judgment of Bozgan v. Romania (no. 35097/02, § 11, 11 October 2007).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of association in that the dismissal by the domestic courts of his request to register his association was not necessary in a democratic society and the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the restriction.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?