European court judgment leads to re-registration of political party

Common sense and the law have finally won out.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, former co-chair of the Republican Party of Russia, quoted on BBC Russian Service, 2012 – Pictured: Vladimir Ryzhkov (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Background

The Republican Party of Russia was founded in 1990.

In December 2005, the party held a conference at which it agreed to make some internal changes. The party asked the Ministry of Justice to amend the information held in its official register, but the ministry refused, claiming that the party had not shown that the conference was convened legally.

The party made a new request, this time with further documents attached, but the ministry once again refused to make the changes. It said it needed more information about the party’s membership.

The party took legal action. It argued that it was not required, by law, to provide the documents that the Ministry of Justice asked for and the ministry did not have the power to verify such information. The party claimed that the ministry’s refusal to change the register prevented it from properly carrying out its activities and violated its freedom of association.

In 2006, the Russian courts upheld the Ministry of Justice’s decision.

Separately, the ministry carried out an inspection of the party’s activities. It ultimately asked Russia’s highest court to close the party because it was in breach of a minimum membership requirement.

Russia’s highest court ordered the party to be closed on 23 March 2007.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court found that the legal basis of the Russian authorities’ decision not to change the official register was unclear. There was no proper reason to interfere in the party’s internal affairs to such an extent. The party’s eventual closure was unnecessary and unjustified.

The court ruled that Russia had breached the party’s freedom of association.

Political parties are a form of association essential to the proper functioning of democracy.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, September 2011

Follow-up

Based on the European court’s judgment, the Republican Party of Russia applied to Russia’s highest court seeking cancellation of its previous judgment about the party’s closure.

In 2012, Russia’s highest court reversed its previous judgment. This meant that the Ministry of Justice had to re-register the party. The party was then able to have the relevant information changed in the official register.

Following the European court’s judgment, Russia also introduced clearer rules on the registration of political parties. Under the 2012 Political Parties Act, the authorities must give reasons for refusing to register a party and give the party concerned three months to address any issues raised.

The Republican Party of Russia has since changed its name to the People’s Freedom Party (PARNAS).

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

Reforms to protect free association after environmental group denied legal status

Four Ukrainians formed a group to help protect their local environment. However, when they tried to register their association the authorities refused, relying on administrative technicalities. The group had to dissolve. The European court ruled that this had violated the group’s right to freedom of association. In 2013 a new Law on Civil Associations created proper rules to protect such groups.

Themes: Freedom of assembly Human rights and the environment ukraine

Ukraine

Reforms to protect free assembly after protest was banned

In 2001 the Christian Democratic People’s Party of Moldova organised peaceful public protests calling for elections and European democratic values. The authorities banned the meetings. The Strasbourg court ruled that the ban had been disproportionate, and violated the right to free assembly. This case and others led to substantial reforms to protect the right to free assembly in Moldova.

Themes: Freedom of assembly republic-of-moldova

Republic of Moldova