Volume IV, Issue II (April 2006) - Columbus School of Law

ECHR, and based upon this analysis, found that there has been a violation of the freedom ofassembly 3535.3.3 Case of the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden-Pirin and Others v BulgariaUMO Illinden Pirin was a political party founded in 1998, but was dissolved since it was declaredas unconstitutional by the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, on the grounds that it was de facto asuccessor of the organization Ilinden (from the cases elaborated previously), and that the partythreatened to secede Pirin Macedonia from Bulgaria, which threat constituted an activity aimedagainst the territorial integrity of the country within the meaning of Article 44 § 2 of theConstitution 354The dissolution of the party was found as amounting to interference within the scope ofArticle 11 of the ECHR. 355 The European Court, did not accept the arguments of the applicants,and underlined that the variation from the Constitutional Court's case law, was not such as tobecome arbitrary and thus it satisfied the requirement "prescribed by law". 356 The alleged threat tonational security was accepted as legitimate objective of the interference. 357 In analysing if theinterference was "necessary in a democratic society", the judgement emphasizes that it could notestablished that the party leaders rejected democratic values and the party had not engaged in anypractical actions which could effectively endanger the country’s territorial integrity (which wasused as grounds for declaring the party unconstitutional). 358 Furthermore, the fact that theapplicant party’s political programme was considered incompatible with the current principlesand structures of the Bulgarian State did not mean that it is incompatible with the rules andprinciples of democracy. 359 In this part of the reasoning, the Court underlined:"In a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenge theexisting order without putting into question the tenets of democracy, and whoserealisation is advocated by peaceful means must be afforded a proper opportunity ofexpression through, inter alia, participation in the political process. However shockingand unacceptable the statements of the applicant party’s leaders and members may appearto the authorities or the majority of the population and however illegitimate theirdemands may be, they do not appear to warrant the impugned interference." 360Consequently, it was held that there was no pressing social need, which required the dissolutionof the party, and thus the interference with Article 11 of the ECHR was not necessary indemocratic society. 361 These three interrelated judgements clearly show, how besides denial ofright to identity, the minority members have trouble in exercising fundamental rights and how theEuropean Court, contributes to minority rights protection, though it deals exclusively withindividual rights.353 Id para 115-117354 Case of the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden-Pirin and Others v Bulgaria, Application no.59489/00, Judgement, Strasbourg, 20 October 2005 [hereinafter UMO Ilinden- Pirin], paras 26-27355 UMO Ilinden Pirin, para 51356 UMO Ilinden-Pirin, para 54357 UMO Ilinden-Pirin, para 55358 Id, para 58359 Id, para 61360 Id, para 61361 Id, para 6261