Refusal to register political party which had not dissociated itself from former Romanian Communist Party was justified
JUDGMENT
The Committee for the organisation and registration of the Romanian Communist Party v. Romania 21.12.2021 (app. no. 20401/15)
SUMMARY
Freedom of association and protection of public order and democracy.
The applicant “The Committee for the Organization and Registration of the Romanian Communist Party (RCP)” objected to the rejection of its application for inclusion in the list of political parties. The domestic authorities considered that the program and the statutory principles of this party had not distanced themselves from the former Communist Party of Romania (formerly RCP), contained vague and general terms and allowed totalitarian and extremist actions, capable of harming national security, and constituted danger to democratic values.
The Court noted that there were several irregularities, as identified by national courts, in the party’s application for registration. With regard to the content of its statutes and political program, the ECtHR found that they contained vague and general terms, that they disregarded democratic values, that they allowed actions of a totalitarian and extremist nature that could undermine national security, and that they represented democratic values.
Given that there was no general prohibition on the establishment of a Communist Party, and that the national authorities’ analysis of the prohibition on party membership was complete and definitive, the ECtHR found no violation of its freedom of association because the intervention served the imperative social need for the protection of democracy.
PROVISION
Article 11
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, the Committee for the organisation and registration of the Romanian Communist
Party (RCP), complained that the Romanian authorities had denied its application to register the RCP
on the list of political parties. The Bucharest County Court rejected its application on 12 May 2014.
The judgment was upheld on 20 October 2014 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The Romanian
courts found in particular that the RCP’s programme and constitution contained provisions that were
contrary to the law on political parties and that there was a real danger of its undermining
democratic values, because the appearance of a political party which did not deny its links with the
former Romanian Communist Party (former RCP) was likely to generate conflicts within society. They
also took the view that the RCP’s programme and constitution set out the party’s basic principles in
very vague and general terms, thus confirming the intention of its founders to restore the same
political ideology as that of the former RCP, which had been abandoned in 1989.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)
The Court found that the refusal to register the RCP as a political party had amounted to
interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of association. This interference was provided for
by legislation (Laws nos. 14/2003 and 51/1991, the legal value of which had not been challenged by
the applicant) and had been aimed at protecting national security and the rights and freedoms of
others. Two types of argument had been put forward by the domestic courts to justify the refusal to
register the RCP: formal reasons and reasons relating to the content of the constitution and political
programme.
As to the formal reasons, the Court observed that there had been several irregularities, as identified
by the domestic courts, in the applicant’s application for registration. The legal requirements
imposed for the purpose of registering the RCP had not been intended to penalise the party on
account of its opinions or policies. In any event, the possibility of remedying all these deficiencies
and submitting a new application for registration had been open to the applicant and did not
constitute an inordinate obstacle. The Court therefore considered that the formal reasons put
forward by the domestic courts to refuse the RCP’s registration had been “relevant and sufficient”
and “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”.
As to the reasons relating to the content of the constitution and the political programme – reasons
also used to justify the refusal to register the RCP – the Court observed that, referring to the
constitution and programme in the case file, the domestic courts had considered that they contained
vague and general terms, that they disregarded democratic values and the country’s social and
political development since 1989, that they allowed for actions of a totalitarian and extremist nature
which could undermine national security, that they represented a danger to democratic values and
that the party had not dissociated itself from the former RCP. Although the historical context marked
by the experience of totalitarian communism in Romania or Marxist ideology could not in
themselves justify the need for interference, the Court noted that the applicant in the present case
had not dissociated itself concretely and entirely from the former RCP.
The applicant’s right to form a communist party was not illusory (parties based on a communist
doctrine already existed in Romania) and the party’s constituent documents could be redrafted to
bring them into line with national law. Lastly, contrary to the applicant’s submission, the Court
observed that the domestic courts had amply explained the reasons for their finding that the
application for registration had not satisfied the conditions laid down in Laws nos. 14/2003 and
51/1991 and, moreover, had demonstrated how the RCP’s programme and constitution were
contrary to the country’s legal order, and in particular to the fundamental principles of democracy.
In the light of all those factors, as well as the margin of appreciation afforded to States, albeit a
narrow one in such matters, the Court considered that the national courts’ analysis of the
constitution and the political programme submitted by the applicant had not been unfounded. The authorities had wished to prevent a political formation which had seriously abused its position over
a long period, by creating a totalitarian regime, from misusing its rights in the future, and thereby to
avoid any danger to national security or to the foundations of a democratic society. This refusal had
been underpinned by a wish to counter a particularly serious abuse, albeit only potential, which
would have undermined the principles of the rule of law and the foundations of democracy.
The national authorities had been justified in considering that the interference in question had met a
“pressing social need” and had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The denial
of the applicant’s registration had thus been “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning
of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association).
The application was therefore manifestly ill-founded and had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
