Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/access-to-resources/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:49:58+00:00

Document:
10.1 Does an association have a right to access resources?
The right to freedom of association encompasses the right to mobilize resources, including human and financial.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has explained that the right to freedom of association includes the ability to seek, receive and use resources – human, material and financial – from domestic, foreign and international sources. UN Human Rights Council, Second Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/39, 24 April 2013, para. 8(e).
The term “resources” encompasses a broad concept that includes financial transfers (e.g. donations, grants, contracts, sponsorships, social investments, etc.); loan guarantees and other forms of financial assistance from natural and legal persons; in-kind donations (e.g. contributions of goods, services, software and other forms of intellectual property, real property, etc.); material resources (e.g. office supplies, IT equipment, etc.); human resources (e.g. paid staff, volunteers, etc.); access to international assistance, solidarity; ability to travel and communicate without undue interference and the right to benefit from the protection of the state. UN Human Rights Council, Second Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/39, 24 April 2013, para. 10.
The right to access funding is a direct and essential component of the right to freedom of association, as confirmed by various sources both at the global and regional level.
The ability to seek, secure and use resources is essential to the existence and effective operations of any association, no matter how small. The right to freedom of association not only includes the ability of individuals or legal entities to form and join an association but also to seek, receive and use resources – human, material and financial – from domestic, foreign, and international sources. UN Human Rights Council, Second Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maini Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/39, April 24, 2013, para. 8.
Many associations, in particular those formed to defend human rights, function as “not-for-profit” entities and therefore depend almost exclusively on external sources of funding to carry out their work. Therefore, “undue restrictions on resources available to associations impact the enjoyment of the right to freedom of association and also undermine civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights as a whole.” UN Human Rights Council, Second Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maini Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/39, April 24, 2013, para. 9.
The State Party should review its legislation and practice in order to enable non-governmental organizations to discharge their functions without impediments, which are inconsistent with the provisions of article 22 of the Covenant, such as prior authorization, funding controls, and administrative dissolution. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Egypt, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/76/EGY, 28 November 2002, para. 21.
even assuming that theoretically the association had a right to exist pending the state registration, the domestic law effectively restricted the association’s ability to function properly without legal entity status. It could not, inter alia, receive any ‘grants’ or financial donations that constituted one of the main sources of financing of non-governmental organizations in Azerbaijan. Without proper financing, the association was not able to engage in charitable activities which constituted the main purpose of its existence. Ramazanova v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, Judgment of 1 February 2007, para. 59.
International law has consistently held that the right to freedom of association includes accessing foreign funding and that limitations to it may constitute violations of the right to freedom of association.
The State party should revise its legislation to ensure that any limitations on the right to freedom of association and assembly are in strict compliance with articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant, and in particular it should reconsider the funding restrictions on local NGOs in the light of the Covenant and it should authorize all NGOs to work in the field of human rights. The State party should not discriminate against NGOs that have some members who reside outside of its borders. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Ethiopia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ETH/CO, 19 August 2011, para. 25.
[t]he right to receive international funds in the context of international cooperation for the defense and promotion of human rights is protected by freedom of association, and the State is obligated to respect this right without any restrictions that go beyond those allowed by the right of freedom of association. IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54, 30 December 2009, para. 585.
The Inter-American Commission also found that restrictions on receiving “international funding to defend political rights” are not permitted by international law. IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser/L/V/II Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 185 (noting that “a situation different from the one just described would be one in which an organization was proselytizing on behalf of a certain political party or candidate to a particular post. Under this circumstance, the activity would not be protected by the aforementioned standard.”).
Governments must allow access by NGOs to foreign funding as a part of international cooperation, to which civil society is entitled to the same extent as Governments. United Nations General Assembly, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, UN Doc. A/59/401 (2004), para. 82 (l).
that no law should criminalize or delegitimize activities in defense of human rights on account of the origin of funding thereto. UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 22/6, 15 March 2013, para. 9.
[I]n the present case these courts [Bulgarian national courts] deemed that a campaign for changes in the constitution and the form of government fell within that category. In another recent case these same courts had, more questionably, stated that the ‘holding of meetings, demonstrations, assemblies and other forms of public campaigning’ by an association campaigning for regional autonomy and alleged minority rights also amounted to political goals and activities within the meaning of Article 12 § 2 of the Constitution of 1991.’  Zhechev v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, Judgment of 21 June 2007, para. 55.
A complete ban on access to domestic or foreign funding for groups engaged in activities of e.g. a “political nature” in order to maintain and protect a vague “national interest” does not meet the legality and proportionality requirement under international law. See UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Information note to the Government of India. Analysis on international law, standards and principles applicable to the Foreign Contributions Act 2010 and Foreign Contributions Regulations 2011. To meet the proportionality criteria, the State measure must always pursue a pressing need, and it must be the least severe (in range, duration, and applicability) option available to the public authority in meeting that need. See Mr. Jeong-Eun Lee v Republic of Korea, Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/84/D/1119/2002, Views of 20 July 2005, para. 7.2. Blanket bans seldom meet that standard.
The ECtHR found that restrictions on the funding of political parties, namely those vying for public office in elections, may be justified. In Parti Nationaliste v. France, a Basque separatist political party in France was prohibited from receiving funding from a foreign political party. The ECtHR found that the restriction on foreign funding of associations involved in promoting candidates for public office served a legitimate aim and was proportionate. Parti Nationaliste Basque-Organization Regionale D’Iparralde v. France, ECtHR, 7 June 2007, para. 47. The Court recognized that the protection of the institutional order – including the sovereignty of the State – is legitimate under Article 11 of the European Convention. Parti Nationaliste Basque-Organization Regionale D’Iparralde v. France, ECtHR, 7 June 2007, para 43.
The court clearly makes a distinction between political parties vying for power and organizations involved in “political activities.” The latter is too vague and therefore too broad to form the basis for restricting the right to freedom of association. Zhechev v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, Judgment of 21 June 2007, para. 55. Similarly, the IACHR has distinguished foreign funding restrictions for political parties or organizations speaking on behalf of a political party as not falling within the same protected standard. IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser/L/V/II Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 185.
When a state invokes national security and protection of public order […] It is not sufficient for the State to refer generally to the security situation. National, political or government interest is not synonymous with national security or public order. Human Rights Council, Joint report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/66, para. 31.
Within the same realm, the ECtHR has held that States may not refuse to register or acknowledge an association on the basis that it was founded by “foreigners” or is a branch of an international association. Moscow Branch of Salvation Army v Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 October 2006, para. 86; see also, Partidul Comunistilor Nepeceristi and Ungureanu v. Romania, ECtHR, Judgment of 2 February 2005, para. 49.

References: v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.