10.05.2007
11 April 2007
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 43724/05
by SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL BRANCH OF
RUSSIAN LABOUR PARTY against Russia
lodged on 1 November 2005
Statement of Facts
THE FACTS
The applicant is the Sverdlovsk regional branch of the political party
"Russian Labour Party" (Свердловское областное региональное отделение
политической партии <<Российская партия труда>>} registered in
Yekaterinburg^1 on 19 September 2002. It is represented before the
Court by Mr R. Kachanov and Mr A. Burkov, lawyers practising in
Yekaterinburg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
On 20 March 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Department of the Ministry of
Justice ("the Justice Department") notified the applicant of a
forthcoming inspection and asked it to produce documents confirming
the number of members registered in the regional branch.
The applicant submitted the members' registration journal (журнал
учёта членов отделения). The Justice Department insisted that
original individual applications for membership be produced.
On 28 April 2003 the Justice Department prepared the inspection
report, mentioning the fact that the applicant had not produced the
requested documents confirming the number of its members, namely the
applications for membership by individual citizens.
On 21 November 2003 and 19 January 2004 the Justice Department issued
warnings to the applicant regarding its failure to comply with the
Political Parties Act. The warning of 19 January 2004 was subsequently
annulled.
The applicant contested the warning of 21 November 2003 to a court,
claiming that the requirement to submit individual applications for
membership had been unlawful because they contained confidential
information about party members.
SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL BRANCH OF RUSSIAN LABOUR PARTY v. RUSSIA -
TATEMENT OF FACTS
On 3 March 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg,
presided over by Judge P., dismissed the applicant's claim, finding as
follows:
"The Justice Department holds the view that the documents [confirming
the number of members] include: individual applications for membership
(section 23 of the Political Parties Act), minutes of meetings of the
party management concerning admission of new members in accordance
with the articles of association, and member registration documents.
The court considers it possible to agree with that interpretation of
[section 38] of the Political Parties Act...
Although the court accepts that whereas, by virtue of section 18 of
the Political
Parties Act, it was sufficient to submit a document confirming the
number of members
of a political party (including the list and the minutes), section 38
of the Political
Parties Act - on the basis of which the inspection was conducted and
the warning
issued - provides for an inspection of the party's activities carried
out by way of
studying the documents confirming the number of members. Such
inspection must be
periodic, it is conducted with a view to establishing grounds for
application of
sections 39 to 42 of the Political Parties Act [governing suspension
of activities and
dissolution of political parties]; otherwise, a political party, once
established, would
never be subject to liquidation [sic].
Accordingly, the Justice Department was entitled - when conducting the
inspection
in accordance with section 38 - to verify the existence of membership
applications.
Such applications were to indicate all the elements relevant for
determining whether
the person could be a member of the party (age, citizenship, residence
in the region)
and whether the requirements of section 23 were complied with.
The regional branch wrongly considers that it was sufficient to submit
the members' registration journal listing the names and addresses of
party members and dates of their admission. The journal does not
contain information on the passport details, citizenship or age of
listed individuals or of their membership of other parties.
In refusing to submit the membership applications, the regional branch
referred to the fact that they contained confidential information
which may not be lawfully disclosed. However, in their complaint to
the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the regional branch wrote
that 'each membership application contains the following date: first
and last names, passport details, date and place of birth, place of
residence, contact details', that is, the information described in
section 23 of the Political Parties Act. If, acting in breach of the
above provision, the regional branch asked potential members to
produce some other, truly confidential information, that may not serve
as a ground for refusing to produce membership applications to the
Justice Department for the inspection in accordance with section
38..."
The applicant lodged an appeal. It submitted, in particular, that the
claim had been heard by Judge P. from the Leninskiy District Court,
whereas it should have been examined by a judge of the Kirovskiy
District Court,
On 12 May 2005 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It
noted that the composition of the District Court had been lawful
because on 1 March 2005 Judge P. had been seconded to the Kirovskiy
District Court for a period of two months. It also rejected the
applicant's argument that the requirement to submit membership
applications had amounted to disclosure to confidential information,
finding that submission of information to an official authority for
the purposes of a verification was acceptable.
SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL BRANCH OF RUSSIAN LABOUR PARTY v. RUSSIA -
STATEMENT OF FACTS
B. Relevant domestic law
The Political Parties Act (Federal Law no. 95-FZ of 11 July 2001)
provided at the material time as follows:
Section 18. Documents submitted for State registration of a regional
branch of
the political party
"1. The following documents must be submitted for State registration
of a regional
branch of the political party:
(d) a certified copy of the minutes of the conference or general
assembly of the regional branch, indicating the number of party
members in the regional branch..."
Section 23. Membership of a political party
"1. Membership of a political party shall be voluntary and individual.
2. Citizens of the Russian Federation who attained the age of eighteen
may be members of a political party. Foreign citizens, stateless
persons, and Russian nationals who have been declared incapable by a
judicial decision may not be members of a political party.
3. Admission to membership of a political party is decided upon on the
basis of a written application by the Russian Federation citizen, in
accordance with the procedure set out in the articles of association.
6. A Russian Federation citizen may hold membership of one political
party only. A member of a political party may be registered only in
one regional branch..."
Section 38. Inspection of activities of political parties
"1. Competent authorities exercise control over compliance by
political parties and their regional and structural branches with the
Russian Federation laws, as well as over the compatibility of the
political party's activities with the regulations, aims and purposes
set out in its articles of association.
Competent authorities have the right:
(a) to study, on the annual basis, the documents of political parties
and their regional branches confirming the existence of regional
branches and the number of their members..."
Section 39. Suspension of functioning of a political party or its
regional branch
"1. If a political party is in breach of the Constitution or federal
laws, the competent authority issues a written warning listing the
specific breach and setting a time-limit, no shorter than two months,
for remedying it. If the breach has not been made good within the
time-limit and the warning has not been contested in court, the
functioning of the political party may be suspended for up to six
months by a decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
made on an application by a competent authority..."
SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL BRANCH OF RUSSIAN LABOUR PARTY v. RUSSIA
STATEMENT OF FACTS
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that it
received a formal warning for its failure to submit confidential
information on its members. This might have had a "chilling effect" on
potential members who would not feel that their personal data was
safe.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the
complaint had been heard by Judge P. from the Leninskiy Court rather
than by a judge of the Kirovskiy Court and that the courts did not
give assessment to its argument about a violation of the right to
freedom of association.
Добавить комментарий: