Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19811015-865279
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 08:49:07+00:00
Document Index: 160745428

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', '§ 3', "l'article 6", "l'article 9", "l'article 26", "l'article 27", "l'article 26", "l'article 11", "l'article 6", "l'article 11", "l'article 6", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 26", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", '§ 3', "l'article 3", "l'article 27", "l'article 9", "l'article 63", "l'article 9"]

X c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8652/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-10-15;8652.79 Analyses : (Art. 11-2) PROTECTION DES DROITS ET LIBERTES D'AUTRUI, (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA VIE FAMILIALE, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA VIE PRIVEE, (Art. 8-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 8-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 8-2) PREVUE PAR LA LOI, (Art. 8-2) PROTECTION DE LA MORALEParties : Demandeurs : XDéfendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8652/79 X . v/AUSTRI A X . c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 15 October 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 15 octobre 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Artlcle 9 of the Convention : Prohibition of an association with a religious aim . No factors showing that the legal structure of an association was necessary for the manifestation of the religion in question . Article 11 of the Convention : Prohibition of an association with a religious aim on the ground that in reality it was a continuation of an association which had previous(v been prohibited. Measure found compatible with the requirements ofArticle !l . paragraph 2, particularly as the religious character of the association had rtot been a basis for the prohibition .
AtYlcle 9 de la Convention : Interdiction d'une association Ã but religieux . Absence d'Ã©lÃ©ment montrant que la forme juridique de l'association Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire Ã la manifestation de la religion en question . Article 11 de la Convention :/nterdiction d'une association Ã but religieux au rnotij qu'il s'agissait en rÃ©alitÃ© de la reconstitution d'une association prÃ©cÃ©dentment interdite . Mesure jugÃ©e conforme aux exigences du paragraphe 2 de cette disposition . d'autant p6ts que le caractÃ¨re religieux de l'association n'a pas Ã©tÃ© retenu contme motif de son interdiction .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 93 )
The applicant, a follower of the Moon sect, founded an association in Vienna in 1 973 called "Gesellschafi zur Vereinigung des Weltchristentums" (the Society for Uniting World Christianity) . It was dissolved on 4 January 1974 by te competent police authority for activities outside the scope of its statutory aims (Art . 24 of the Associations Act (Vereinigungsgesetz)) and for
having the characteristics of a religious communau ty, which communities are not authorised by law to take the form of an association (Art . 3 of the Associations Act) . Shortly afterwards the applicant announced the foundation of another association called .Gesel/schaft zur Ftirderung der Vereinigungskirche" (the Societyfor the Promotion of the Union Church) whose statutory aim had been defined slightly differently . The notification of this second association was made to the local administration (Magistrat) in Vienna which prohibited it . this decision being upheld by the Ministry of the Interior. However, by a judgment of 10 June 1975 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision because the local authority had no jurisdiction in the matter case was refened to the competent police authority which again .The prohibited the association under Article 6(1) of the aforementioned Act, which prohibits the foundation of an association which seeks to continue the illegal activities of an association which has previously been dissolved by the authorities . Having unsuccessfully appealed to the Ministry of the Interior, the applicant further appealed to the Constitutional Court, invoking, in particular. Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention . In a decision of 27 September 1978, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal noting that the association had been dissolved in accordance with Article 6, paragraph I of the said Act and not Article 3(a), which had not been applicable to the case. It found the dissolution justified under Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
THE LA W 1 . The applicant who founded and acted as chairman of two associations intended to provide the organisational framework for the Moon sect in Austria complains of the dissolution of these associations by the authorities which he considers to be in violation of his freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 9 and of his freedom of association as guaranteed by Article I1 of the Convention . 2 . As regards the first of these associations, called "Gesellschaft zur Vereinigung des Weltchri sYentums" (Society for Uniting World Christianity) which was dissolved on 4 January 1974, the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him as required by Article 26 of the Convention, and accordingly the applicant's above complaints insofar as they may be understood as relating to the dissolution of this association must be rejected under Article 27 (3) of the Convention . 3 . As regards the prohibition of the second association, called "Gesellschaft zur Ftirderung der Vereinigungskirche" (Society for the Promotion of the Union Church), the applicant has exhausted the domestic remedies availabl e
to him by lodging a constitutional appeal . The Constitutional Court's decision was communicated to him on 20 December 1978 and the present application, filed on 12 June 1979, has therefore been brought within the six months period envisaged by Article 26 of the Convention . The Commission is therefore called upon to deal with the substance of the applicant's above complaints insofar as they are related to the prohibition of the second association . 4 . The applicant's principal complaint is that there has been an unjustified interference with his freedom of association contrary to Article 11 of the Convention . The relevant parts of this Article read as follows : (1) Everyone has the right to . . . freedom of association with others . . . (2) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . . . a) The association founded by the applicant under the name "Gesellschaft zur Fbrderung der Vereinigungskirche" was prohibited by the authorities . There can therefore be no doubt that there has been interference with the applicant's right to freedom of association within the meaning of the first paragraph of the above Article . b) The question is then whether this interference can be justif9ed under the second paragraph of the Article . This paragraph requires, first, that any restriction of the freedom in question should be prescribed by law, secondly, that it should pursue one of the purposes enumerated there, and thirdly, that it should be necessary in a democratic society . As regards these requirements, the Commission notes that according to the Constitutional Court the decisive reason justifying the prohibition of the association in question was its continuation of the illegal activities of the formerly dissolved association founded by the applicant . This prohibition was based on Article 6(I) of the Associations Act and hence "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 11 (2) of the Convention . The Commission also considers that it is justifiable under this provision, namely as being necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder, to prohibit an association because it unlawfully continues the activities of a dissolved association . The application of Article 6 (1) of the Associations Act does not therefore in itself give rise to a problem under the Convention . c) The applicant in the present case claims, however, that this provision was wrongly applied to him and that the true reason why the second association founded by him was prohibited was the fact that like the first association it constituted a religious community, excluded from the application of the Associations Act by virtue of its Article 3 (a) . This exclusion of religious com-
munities from the application of the Associations Act would have left him without any legal possibility to organise the group represented by him as an entity recognised by law and having legal personality because there are no alternative forms of organisation available for non-recognised religious communities . In this connection the Commission first notes the Government's argÃ»ment that it is not open to the applicant to challenge the application of Article 3 (a) of the Associations Act in this case because in the domestic proceedings he failed to do so at the appropriate time, namely in connection with the dissolution of the first association founded by him . The Commission considers, however, that it can leave open the difficult question whether or not the applicant has actually exhausted all domestic remedies in this respect . For even assuming that by his constitutional appeal against the prohibition of the second association he did in fact exhaust the domestic remedies in conformity with Article 26 of the Convention, it nevertheless appears from the Constitutional Court's decision itself that Article 3 of the Associations Act was not considered as decisive . The Constitutional Court even stated that in the case before it Article 3 (a) had not been actually applied by the administrative authorities nor had it been applicable ("ergibt sich, dass bei der Erlassung des angefochtenen Bescheides Â§ 3 lit a . VG nicht angewendet wurde und auch nicht anzuwenden war") . This decision by the Constitutional Court was the final domestic decision in the applicant's case and therefore the decision which the Commission must take as the starting point for its examination under the Convention . It shows that the Associations Act was applied in such a way as to allow, in principle, for the establishment even of religious organisations as associations under the Act, notwithstanding the terms of Article 3 (a) thereof. The availability of alternative forms of legal organisation is therefore irrelevant . The applicant's complaint that he was barred from having the group represented by him registered as an association because it was a religious community and that his freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention has thereby been violated is consequently manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article .27 (2) of the Convention . 5 . The applicant has finally complained that the prohibition of the association founded by him also amounted to an unjustified interference with his and the association's freedoni of religion as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention . The Commission observes, however, that in the present case it has not been substantiated by the applicant that there has been any interference with his freedom of religion as a follower of the Moon sect ; in particular it has been shown that the dissolution of the association in which the sect wanted to organise itself did as such interfere with the manifestation of his religion o r
belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance . As the Government have stressed, the practice even of a non-recognised religion is fully guaranteed in Austria by Article 63 (2) of the Treaty of St . Germain independently from any form of registration . The applicant's allegations of harassments by the police cannot be taken into account in this respect because it is clear from his submissions that these allegations, even if they were substantiated, concern the treatment of other persons and not of the applicant himself. It follows that the applicant's complaint of unjustified interferences with his right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention is also manifestly illfounded . For these reasons, the Commissio n
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Le requÃ©rant, qui est un adepte de la secte Moon a fondÃ© en 1973 Ã Vienne une association nommÃ©e Â« Gesellschaft zur Vereinigung des Weltchristentums â¢ (SociÃ©tÃ© pour t'unijcation de la chrÃ©tientÃ©). Celle-ci fut dissoute le 4 janvtÃ©r 1974 par dÃ©cision de l'administration de la police au motif que son activitÃ© ne correspondait pas Ã son but statutaire (Art . 24 de la loi sur les associations/Vereingesetz) et qu'elle prÃ©sentait les caractÃ©ristiques d'une organisation religieuse, que la loi n'autorise pas Ã prendre la forme d'une association (Art . 3a de la loi sur les associations) .
Le requÃ©rant annon Ã§ a aussitÃ´t la fondation d'une autre association, nommÃ©e . Gesellschaft zur F6rderung der Vereinigungskirche â¢ (SociÃ©tÃ© pour la promotion de l'Ã©glise de l'union), dont le but statutaire Ã©tait dÃ©fini de maniÃ¨re lÃ©gÃ¨rement diffÃ©rente . Cette deuxiÃ¨me association ayant Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ©e Ã l'administration locale (Magistrat) de Vienne, celle-ci l'interdit derechef et sa dÃ©cision fut confirmÃ©e par le MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur. Toutefois, par arrÃªt du 70 juin 1975, la Cour constitutionnelle annula cette dÃ©cision pour incompÃ©tence de l'administration locale . L'affaire revint entre les mains de l'administration de la police, qui interdit Ã nouveau l'association en vertu de l'article 6, paragrapke /, de la mÃ©me loi, lequel prokibe la fondation d'une association destinÃ©e Ã continuer l'activitÃ© d'une association prÃ©cÃ©demment dissoute par les autor(tÃ©s .
AprÃ¨s s'Ãªtre adressÃ© sans succÃ¨s au MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur, le requÃ©rant saisit (a Cour constitutionnel(e en invoquant notamment les articles 11 et 14 de la Convention . Par arrÃ©t du 27 septembre 1978, la Cour constitutionnelle rejeta le recours en considÃ©rant notamment que l'association avait Ã©tÃ© dissoute en vertu de l'artic/e 6. paragraphe 1, de la loi, et non en vert u de son article 3a . leque l n'eÃ»t pas Ã©tÃ© applicable en l'espÃ¨ce. Elle estimait aussi que la dissofution de l'association Ã©tait justifiÃ©e aux termes de ['artic(e 11, paragraphe 2, de lÃ Convention .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant, fondateur et prÃ©sident de deux associations destinÃ©es Ã former la structure de la secte Moon en Autriche, se plaint de la dissolution de ces associations par les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes, ce qu'il estime contraire Ã sa libertÃ© de religion, garantie par l'article 9, et Ã sa GbertÃ© d'association, garantie par l'article f l de la Convention . 2 . Pour ce qui est de la premiÃ¨re de ces associations appelÃ©e - Gesellschaft zur Vereinigung des Weltchristentums .(SociÃ©tÃ© pour l'unification de la chrÃ©tientÃ©), dissoute le 4 janvier 1974, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition, comme l'exige l'article 26 de la Convention . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les griefs du requÃ©rant concernent la dissolution de cette association, ils doivent donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©s conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . 3. En revanche, en ce qui concerne l'interdiction de la seconde association, appelÃ©e â¢ GeselLschaft zur FtSrderung der Vereinigungskirche - (SociÃ©tÃ© pour la promotion de l'Ã©glise de l'union), le requÃ©rant a Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes Ã sa disposition, puisqu'il a formÃ© un recours constitutionnel . L'affÃ©t de la Cour constitutionnelle lui a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ© le 20 dÃ©cembre 1978 et la prÃ©sente requÃ©te, dÃ©posÃ©e le 12 juin 1979, a donc Ã©tÃ© introduite dans le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . La Commission est ainsi'appelÃ©e Ã examiner le bien-fondÃ© des griefs prÃ©citÃ©s du requÃ©rant, dans la mesure oÃ¹ ils concernent l'interdiction de la seconde association . 4 . Le grief principal du requÃ©rant est que, contrairement Ã l'article 11 de la Convention, il y a eu atteinte injustifiÃ©e Ã sa libertÃ© d'association . Les parties y affÃ©rentes de cette disposition sont ainsi libellÃ©es :
(1) Toute personne a droit Ã . . . la libertÃ© d'association . . . (2) L'exercice de ces droits ne peut faire l'objet d'autres restrictions que celles qui, prÃ©vues par la loi, constituent des mesures nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sÃ¹ret Ã©
publique, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention du crime, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . . . a . L'association, fondÃ©e par le requÃ©rant sous le nom de â¢ Gesellschaft zuT FÃ¼rderung der Vereinigungskirche . a Ã©tÃ© interdite par les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes . Il est donc indÃ©niable qu'il y a eu ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice par le requÃ©rant de son droit Ã la libertÃ© d'association, au sens de l'article prÃ©citÃ© . b . Il convient d'examiner si cette ingÃ©rence se justifiait au regard du second paragraphe de l'article . Ce texte exige, premiÃ¨rement, que la restriction apportÃ©e Ã l'exercice de la libertÃ© en question soit prÃ©vue par la loi ; deuxiÃ¨mement, qu'elle rÃ©ponde Ã l'un des objectifs qui y sont Ã©numÃ©rÃ©s et, troisiÃ¨mement, qu'elle soit nÃ©cessaire dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique . Sur ces conditions, la Commission relÃ¨ve que, selon la Cour constitutionnelle, le motif dÃ©terminant pour interdire l'association en question a Ã©tÃ© qu'elle poursuivait les activitÃ©s illÃ©gales de l'association prÃ©cÃ©demment fondÃ©e par le requÃ©rant puis dissoute . Cette interdiction se fondait sur l'article 6(1) de la loi sur les associations et Ã©tait donc . prÃ©vue par la loi â¢, au sens de l'article 11, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . La Commission estime Ã©galement justifiÃ©, au regard de cette disposition, puisque nÃ©cessaire dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre, d'interdire une association parce qu'elle continue illÃ©galement les activitÃ©s d'une association dissoute . L'application de l'article 6(1) de la loi sur les associations ne fait donc pas en soi problÃ¨me au regard de la Convention . c . En l'espÃ¨ce toutefois, le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend que cette disposition lui a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e Ã tort et que le vÃ©ritable motif d'interdiction de la seconde association fondÃ©e par lui Ã©tait que, tout comme la premiÃ¨re, elle constituait une communautÃ© religieuse exclue de l'application de la loi sur les associations en vertu de l'article 3 (a) . Cette exclusion des communautÃ©s religieuses de l'application de la loi sur les associations Ã´terait au requÃ©rant la possibilitÃ© juridique d'organiser le groupe qu'il reprÃ©sente comme une entitÃ© reconnue par la loi et dotÃ©e de la personnalitÃ© juridique, puisqu'il n'existe pas d'autres formes d'organisation possible pour les communautÃ©s religieuses non reconnues . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission relÃ¨ve tout d'abord l'argument du Gouvernement selon lequel le requÃ©rant n'aurait pas, en l'espÃ¨ce, la facultÃ© de contester l'application de l'article 3 (a) de la loi sur les associations parce que, sur le plan interne, il ne l'a pas fait au moment voulu, c'est-Ã -dire au moment de la dissolution de la premiÃ¨re association fondÃ©e par lui . La Commission estime cependant qu'elle peut laisser pendante la difficile question de savoir si le requÃ©rant a ou non effectivement Ã©puisÃ© toutes les voies de recours internes Ã cet Ã©gard . Car en supposant mÃ©me qu'avec le pourvoi constitutionnel formÃ© contre l'interdiction de la seconde association il ait en fait Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, il ressort nÃ©anmoins d e
l'arrÃªt rendu par la Cour constitutionnelle que l'article 3 (a) de la loi sur les associations n'a pas Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© dÃ©cisif . La Cour a mÃªme dÃ©clarÃ© qu'en l'espÃ¨ce l'article 3 (a) n'avait finalement pas Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ© par l'administration, si tant est qu'il fÃ»t applicable (â¢ ergibt sich, dass bei der Erlassung des angefochtenen Bescheides Â§ 3 lit a VG nicht angewendet wurde und auch nicht anzuwenden war .) . Cet arrÃªt de la Cour constitutionnelle Ã©tant, en l'espÃ¨ce, la dÃ©cision finale interne, c'est elle que la Commission doit prendre comme point de dÃ©part pour examiner l'affaire au regard de la Convention . Or, elle montre que la loi sur les associations a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e de maniÃ¨re Ã permettre thÃ©oriquement, malgrÃ© les tetmes de l'article 3 (a) de la loi, la crÃ©ation en tant qu'associations d'organisations ayant mÃªme un caractÃ¨re religieux . L'existence d'autres formes d'organisations lÃ©gales n'a donc rien Ã voir en l'espÃ¨ce . Le grief selon lequel le requÃ©rant aurait Ã©tÃ© empÃªchÃ© de faire enregistrer comme association le groupe qu'il reprÃ©sentait parce qu'il s'agissait d'une communautÃ© religieuse et que la libertÃ© d'association garantie par .l'article Il de la Convention aurait donc Ã©tÃ© enfreinte, est par consÃ©quent manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . S . L.Ã© requÃ©rant se plaint enfin que l'interdiction de l'association crÃ©Ã©e par lui constituait Ã©galement une atteinte injustifiÃ©e Ã sa libertÃ© de religion et Ã celle de l'association, telles que les garantit l'article 9 de la Convention .LaCom is onremarquecep ndantqu'enl'espÃ¨cel requÃ©rant 'apa s expliquÃ© comment il y aurait eu atteinte quelconque Ã sa libertÃ© de religion en tant qu'adepte de la secte Moon ; notamment, il n'a-pas montrÃ© que la dissolution de l'association par laquelle la secte voulait s'organiser ait en soi entravÃ© sa libertÃ© de manifester sa religion ou sa conviction par le culte, l'enseignement, les pratiques et l'accomplissÃ©ment des rites . Comme l'a soulignÃ© le Gouvernement, la pratique d'une religion, mÃªmÃ© non reconnue, est pleinement garantie en Autriche par l'article 63 (2) du TraitÃ© de St-Germain, indÃ©pendamment de toute forme d'enregistrement . Les allÃ©gÃ¢tions du requÃ©rant quant aux brimades de la police ne sauraient Ãªtre prises en compte Ã cet Ã©gard, puisqu'il ressort clairement de ses observations que ces allÃ©gations, mÃªme si elles Ã©taient fondÃ©es, concement le traitement rÃ©servÃ© Ã d'autres personnes et non Ã lui-mÃªme . Il s'ensuit que le grief formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant quant Ã des atteintes injustifiÃ©es-Ã son droit d'exercer la libertÃ© de religion tel que le lui garantit l'article 9 de la Convention est, lui aussi, manifestement mal fondÃ© . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
-96-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/10/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page