SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT
SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES
Contact: Zoë Bryanston-Cross Tel: 03.90.21.59.62
Date: 03/05/2021 DH-DD(2021)448
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
Meeting: 1406th meeting (June 2021) (DH)
Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (22/04/2021) in the case of UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00).
Information made available under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.
Réunion : 1406e réunion (juin 2021) (DH)
Communication d'une ONG (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (22/04/2021) dans l’affaire UMO ILINDEN ET AUTRES c. Bulgarie (requête n° 59491/00) [anglais uniquement]
Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 9.2 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l'exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables.
DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE DEPARTMENT FOR THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS
1406th (DH) MEETING OF THE DELEGATES 7-9 JUNE 2021 DGI 22 AVR. 2021
SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION 22 April 2021 DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH
OBSERVATIONS
OF THE BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTION OF THE GROUP OF JUDGMENTS "UMO !LINDEN AND OTHERS V. BULGARIA"
These observations are prepared by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC), a human rights NGO, which provided legal assistance to the applicants in most of the cases in this group, as well as to applicants who were victims in similar cases of restrictions of their freedom of association in Bulgaria. In order to facilitate the delegates' appraisal of the execution of this group of judgments, the current submission provides:
• A short background to the subject-matter, the new cases and the recent developments in the execution of the judgments in this group; • A short background to the recent political and human rights developments in Bulgaria relating to freedom of association, which clarify the underlying reasons for the refusals of the Bulgarian courts to register associations of ethnie Macedonians in Bulgaria; • An appraisal, correction and addition to the information contained in the updated addendum to the Action Plan of the Government of Bulgaria, submitted on 12 April 2021 ; • Information on developments with the registration of Macedonain organisations not included in the Government's submission.
1 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
1. Background to the subject-matter, the new cases and the recent developments in the execution of the judgments This group of cases concems the successive refusais of the Bulgarian courts to register associations, which explicitly state in their statutes that their members are ethnie Macedonians and that their aims are related to the protection of their rights and freedoms. At present, six judgments are included in this group. They concem cases of the association "UMO Ilinden", as well as two other cases of refusais of the Bulgarian authorities to register Macedonian associations with goals similar to those of the "UMO Ilinden". Sorne of the judgments included in this group concem several consecutive refusais to register the applicant association. Altogether, since its founding in the early 1990s, the "UMO Ilinden" made more than 20 attempts to register. Each time it received a refusal. Other associations of ethnie Macedonians also made repeated attempts and received refusals.
Several applications are currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court) involving refusais by the Bulgarian authorities to register "UMO Ilinden" and other Macedonian associations on grounds similar to those, which were considered and rejected by the Court in its previous judgments. All these refusais were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others and on the constitutional prohibition on associations to pursue political goals, as well as on failures to meet formai legal requirements. Sorne refusais explicitly link the threat to national security with the associations' Macedonian identity.
ln its previous judgments the Court dismissed all these justifications and found violations of Article 11 of the Convention. It held that the applicants had not advocated violence or other undemocratic means to achieve their goals; that the national courts' labelling of the applicants' prospective activities as "political" in order to deny them registration was excessively restrictive and arbitrary; and that their willingness to support independent candidates in elections is a legitimate means to achieve their goals and should not serve as a ground to deny them registration. It also held that in some cases the national courts had not based their judgments on a solid assessment of the material facts.
On 1 October 2020, the Committee of Ministers adopted an interim resolution on this group of cases. In it the Committee expressed deep concem and regret that despite the numerous efforts of "UMO Ilinden" and of the other associations of ethnie Macedonians in Bulgaria to register, they continue to encounter problems related to inconsistent and formalistic application of legal requirements and the Registration Agency's predominant practice not to give instructions to
2 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
rectify the registration files, except in limited situations, as well as its failure on certain occasions to identify all the defects of registration files in its refusals; to refusals on grounds, such as the potentîai for an association promoting the existence of a "Macedonian minority" to endanger national unity and the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, which have been systematically rejected by the European Court in the cases from this group; and to their inability to benefit from Convention-compliant registration procedures. In conclusion the Committee:
• EXHORTED the authorities to ensure that any new registration request of "UMO Ilinden" or associations similar to "UMO Ilinden" is examined in full compliance with Article 11 of the Convention, as regards formal legal requirements that must be applied in a proportionate, foreseeable and consistent manner, with clear instructions to applicants if needed, and also as regards the assessment of the lawfulness of the association's goals and the means for pursuing them; • URGED them to adopt legislative or other appropriate measures to ensure broader and more effective obligation for the Registration Agency to give instructions to associations to rectify registration files, whenever this is objectively possible, so as to reconcile the Agency's practice of strict application of formal requirements with the effective exercise of the right to freedom of association; • URGED them also to convey a message and to continue their efforts to raise awareness that associations aiming to achieve "the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria" should not be refused registration on grounds related to the associations' goals and means for pursuing them which contradict the European Court's judgments in these cases, and that such associations should not be subject to dissolution procedures on similar grounds; • INVITED the authorities to finalise their work on supplementing the guidelines for the registration officers to cover the issues examined in this group of cases, as well as the preparation of user-friendly instructions for associations and to ensure that the Registration Agency identifies exhaustively the defects of a registration file, as required under domestic law, to allow the associations to submit rapidly a registration file which meets all legal requirements.
3 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
2. Background to the recent political and human rights developments in Bulgaria relating to freedom of association Since the last review of this group of cases freedom of association in Bulgaria in general and freedom of association of ethnie Macedonians suffered the most serious deterioration in a generally unfavourable climate for human rights, which prevailed since May 2017, when the current government was formed as a coalition between the center-right political party GERB and the "United Patriots", itself a coalition of three nationalistic political parties. The influence on the govemment of the "United Patriots" and, in particular, of one of its constituent parties, the Intemal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (VMRO), proved to be particularly destructive for the human rights of the Bulgarian Macedonians.
The Macedonians of Bulgaria became hostages of the worsening relations between Bulgaria and North Macedonia in 2020. In September 2020, Bulgaria has sent an explanatory memorandum to the Council of the European Union containing its framework position on the accession to the European Union of North Macedonia. In November 2020, Bulgaria refused to approve the European Union's negotiation framework for North Macedonia, thus blocking the official start of accession talks with it. The Bulgarian govemment wants North Macedonia to acknowledge that the language spoken in North Macedonia is a dialect of the Bulgarian language, to recognise the Bulgarian origins of the Macedonian nation and to give up any claims they may have that there is a separate Macedonian minority in Bulgaria.
In the course of the debate around the Bulgarian position on North Macedonia's accession, which lasted throughout the second half of 2020, a number of top Bulgarian politicians expressed categorical views that there is no Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. Numerous statements to that effect were made in the framework of the debate, as well as on other occasions, such as the inclusion of a paragraph demanding the execution of the ECtHR judgments on freedom of association of Macedonians in the European Parliament resolution of 8 October 2020 on the rule of law andfimdamental rights in Bulgaria, as well as on the reference to the violations of the freedom of association of Macedonians in the US State Department report on human rights in Bulgaria of 31 March 2021.
4 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
• On 16 September 2020, the MEP Angel Dzhambazki, deputy president of the VMRO, stated during a debate in the European Parliament: "In Bulgaria there is no "Macedonian minority", there has never been one and there cannot be". 1 • On 29 November 2020, the Prime Minister Borisov stated before the German newspaper Franlifurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "There is no Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. What Macedonian minority there can be? I don't know about such a minority. I found about such thing from the resolution [of the European Parliament]. "2 • On 9 October 2020, one day after the adoption of the resolution of the European Parliament on the rule of law and fondamental rights in Bulgaria, the parliamentary group of GERB made the following statement: "We are not going to speak about "UMO Ilinden" and for the recognition of a hypothetical Macedonian minority. It is a tremendous mistake of the European Parliament that it supports a lie, because it is an absolute lie that there are Macedonians in Bulgaria."3 • Of all the politicians in Bulgaria, Krassimir Karakachanov, leader ofVMRO and deputy prime minister, made the biggest number of hostile statements regarding the existence of a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. Most recently, on the occasion of the release of the US State Department report on human rights in Bulgaria, he stated that Bulgaria cannot recognize "a minority of a nation, which was created in Moscow".4 • The other member of the "United Patriots", the nationalistic National Front for Salvation of Bulgaria, made a special declaration on the same occasion: "[the report] imperatively insists on the recognition of the existence of a "Macedonian minority". We strongly condemn this and state: the Bulgarian people will not betray its national memory and history and will not retract on the issue of Macedonia. All along all its borders Bulgaria borders only its own compatriots. "5
Politicians from other political parties also made statements denying the existence of a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. Similar views have expressed publicly media
1 "A)l(aM6a3KH oT ETI: B E1,nrapll! IDlMa ,,MaKe)],oHcKo ManrurncTBO", He e HMano, IDIMa u He M0)l(e )],a HMa", Trud, 16 September 2020. 2 "EopucoB B HHTepBio npeA
5 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
commentators, political scientists, historians, linguists and other public figures. Representatives of the Macedonian minority were not given any possibilities to express their views by the mainstream media.
3. The updated Action Plan of the Government of Bulgaria
The Government of Bulgaria submitted two addendums to their action plan for the current review - one on 29 March 2021 and another one, which incorporates the pervious addendum and adds some more information, on 12 April 2021. The current submission comments on the second addendum to the action plan. In it, the Government provides information on the history of the attempts, all of them unsuccessful, of the "UMO Ilinden" and other Macedonian organisations to obtain registration as juridical persans since November 2018. It is unclear why the Government deals with cases, some of which were initiated almost two years before the last review of the Committee of Ministers in October 2020. The Government's narrative in the first five pages of their submission portrays a history of numerous attempts of "UMO Ilinden" to obtain registration, all of which failed on technicalities. The officiais of the Registration Agency (RA) and the courts did their best to invent all types of formalistic reasons to refuse registration. They looked at every detail in the applicant's registration file trying to uncover mistakes and, without giving any instructions for rectification, rejected the application. Of all the Bulgarian NGOs, it appears that the Macedonian ones, with one exception, were the only groups that were by and large unable to fulfill the formai requirements for filing a proper registration request over the past 30 years, even though each time they acted with the assistance of experienced lawyers. The real reasons for this failure are, of course, different - it is the reluctance of the RA officiais and the courts to register a Macedonian organisation and to thus recognize that there are Macedonians in Bulgaria who have human rights.
Even though looking at technicalities in the way the Bulgarian officiais and the courts did, could provide a basis for refusai of application requests of Macedonians for another 30 years, after the assault by the VMRO and the Bulgarian Prosecution on the "Civil Association for the Protection of Fundamental Individual Rights" in the second half of 2019, which lead to their dissolution in July 2020, this arduous and annoying effort became unnecessary. The RA officiais and the courts found no reason to hide their real motives anymore and started expressing them in their decisions. The Sofia Court of Appeal (SCA) led the way with its decision of 24 October 2019 in the case of the "Society of the Repressed Macedonians in
6 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
Bulgaria Victims of the Communist Terror" (the same organisation, on behalf of which the Court found a violation of Article 11 due to a previous refusai seven months later). In it the SCA refused registration of the applicant association because its statute claims the existence of a Macedonian ethnie minority. According to the court, an organisation for the protection of the interests of an ethnie minority, "which is not historically structured and formed on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria" is contrary to the "unity of the nation" as provided for by Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution. To this, the SCA adds another reason for refusai, which was considered and rejected by the ECtHR - that the association sets political goals related to carrying out activities, characteristic of a political party, contrary to Article 12, para. 2 of the Constitution.
The Government in its submission apparently finds it impossible to avoid presenting this trend in the reasoning of the Bulgarian courts. It presents the above decision, as well as several other decisions, in which the Bulgarian courts ground their refusais on the Macedonian identity of the applicant associations. This is also the case with the dissolution of the "Civil Association for the Protection of Fundamental Individual Rights". In its decision, which is presented on p. 10 of the Govemment's submission, the Blagoevgrad Regional Court (BRC) reasons that protection of the human rights of Macedonians suggests the existence of a Macedonian minority, which is contrary to Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution. This provision prohibits agsociations whose activities undermine "unity of the nation".
This latter case is of a particular importance for the current review. The "Civil Association for the Protection of Fundamental Individual Rights" was the only association of Macedonians, ever registered in Bulgatia. As soon as this happened in 2019, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the VMRO Karakachanov wrote to the Prosecutor General with a request to dissolve it. The group was investigated by the State Agency "National Security" (SANS), the Bulgarian secret service, tasked with investigating threats to the national security. SANS recommended dissolution and the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office, acting on the instruction of the Prosecutor General, brought dissolution proceedings in the BRC. The latter dissolved the organisation on 20 June 2020. This is a clear indication that even after it is registered, a Macedonian organisation cannot operate freely in Bulgaria and can be dissolved as a threat to the national security and "unity of the nation". The dissolution of the "Civil Association for the Protection of Fundamental Individual Rights" is the first dissolution of a registered human rights NGO since the fall of the communist rcgimc in 1989. It is a serious blow on freedom of association of the Macedonians and on Bulgaria's human rights community in general.
7 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
Even though it provides information on cases, in which the RA officials and the courts refused registration of Macedonian groups based on their Macedonian identity and their goals, the Government's submission in this respect is incomplete. In several cases it fails to properly disclose discriminatory motives of the courts in justifying their refusais. One such case is the refusai of the RA for registration of "UMO Ilinden" of 13 October 2020, i.e. after the Committee of Ministers' interim resolution (p. 6 of the Government's submission). The Government states that the reasons for the rejection of the organisation's application is that "points 3 and 4 of the goals impose obligations on the State, which is inadmissible". The Government then goes on to suggest that the refusai was upheld by the BGR and the SCA but does not explain what are points 3 and 4 of the association's goals. These goals include opening of a public radio station and a TV channel in Macedonian language and ensuring the reception of radio and TV programs in Macedonian from the Republic of North Macedonia. The BRC upheld the refusais and asked the question: "Is there a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and is the Macedonian national identity recognized in order to accept that such goals do not threaten the national and the public security?" The court held that "the right to association is an inalienable human right, but not when it threatens the public order of the state". On 10 February 2021, the SCA confirmed the refusai but changed entirely the reasons. lt held that it is unacceptable to elect into the board of the association ail its members and that its goals are of public benefit and therefore the association should register as one in public benefit.
Another case where the Government does not provide an accurate account of the registration proceedings is that of the "Society of the Repressed Macedonians in Bulgaria Victims of the Communist Terror", which applied on 18 June 2019. Its application was rejected on a curious ground by the RA - that its statute does not envisage any economic activity, something which the law does not oblige the non-profit associations to have. According to the Government (p. 8 of its submission), the BRC "accepted that the refusai was correct and lawful and should be upheld". Such a presentation leaves the reader with the impression that the BRC considered the lack of economic activity in the statute as the sole ground for the refusal. In fact it did consider it as one of the grounds, but added two other grounds: 1. that the applicant association restricts its activities solely to the rights of the repressed Macedonians without regard to the other victims of the communist regime; and 2. that it envisages "organizing of rallies and demonstrations", which for the courtisan activities, essential to a political party, which is why the applicant association should seek registration as a political party. The latter of course is a sheer nonsense and is an indication that the court was looking for whatever cover for its
8 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
discriminatory motives. The SCA on appeal did not need such a cover, disregarded the reasons of the RA official and the BRC, and refused registration with new, clearly discriminatory reasons - because the applicant association claimed the existence of a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, something, which, according to the SCA, undermined "unity of the nation" contrary to Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution. To this it added the time worn reason related to the association's alleged "political goals". These discriminatory reasons of the SCA become sufficiently clear from the Government's submission.
The third case, for which the Government's submission does not provide adequate information is the n-ew attempt of the ''Society of the Repressed Macedonians in Bulgaria Victims of the Communist Terror" to register on 14 February 2020. The Government's submission provides a fair account of the discrîminatory reasons for the refusal of the RA, but fails to adequately present the decisions of the BRC and the SCA. On 10 March 2020, the BRC issued a decision rejecting the association's appeal and confirming the refusa! of the RA. The court stressed that "the protection of the rights and freedoms of Macedonians in Bulgaria" is an activity undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity of the country and the unity of the nation; it can incite national enmity and violate rights and freedoms of the citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria. Such an activity is not in accordance with Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution. According to the BRC, the provision of Article 2, para. 2, item 10 of the statute of the association (organizing of rallies and demonstrations in the framework of the law) is also unlawful because it envisages· activities "inherent in a political party". The applicant association appealed this decision. With a decision of 8 June 2020, the SCA upheld the refusa! of the BRC. In its reasons, the SCA pointed at three inconsistencies of the statute of the association with the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria: 1. Contradiction with Article 6, para. 2 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination and privileges based, inter alia, on ''nationality, ethnicity and origin". The court does not say explicitly, but seems to imply that the formation of a Macedonian association in Bulgaria is a privilege within the meaning of this provision; 2. According to the SCA, some of the goals stated in the statute of the association, suggest the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity and call for the defense and protection of the "Macedonian cause". These, according to the court, "are activities against the unity of the Bulgarian nation and the territorial integrity of our country" in violation of Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution; 3. The statute of the association formulates goals aiming at carrying out political activity within the meaning of the Law on Political Parties, which contradicts Article
9 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
12, para. 2 of the Constitution, which prohibits citizens' associations from carrymg out activities that are characteristic solely of political parties.
4. Developments with the registration of Macedonian organisations not included in the Government's addendum to the Action Plan
The Government's submission does not include some developments with refusals of registration of Macedonian organisations from 2020 and 2021. Another, newly formed Macedonian organization, the "Civic Initiative for Recognition of the Macedonian National Minority in Bulgaria and Protection of the Rights of Citizens with Macedonian Self Consciousness" (Civic Initiative), made two unsuccessful attempts to register in 2020. On 24 February 2020, it applied for registration and was refused the next day. The RA found numerous minor irregularities in the application, some of which were curious. For example, although the organisation explicitly states that it will not engage in economic activity, the AB observes that some of the activities provided for in the statute, such as the publication of books and other materials, may be economic activities. This, according to the RA creates ambiguity. The RA also asked the organisation to provide evidence that its founders were not placed under guardianshi p.
The Civic Initiative decided not to appeal, but to submit a new application for registration and did so on 13 May 2020. It received a new refusai from the RA the next day on formai grounds. According to the RA, the association has elected a chairman and a secretary-treasurer, who are its goveming bodies subject to registration, but they are not stated as such in the application form. On 22 May 2020, the association appealed the refusal to the BRC. On 12 June 2020, the BRC issued a decision rejecting the association's appeal and confirming the refusai of the RA. The court held that the reasons for the refusai of the RA official were unlawful. It full y shared the applicant association's arguments that the goveming bodies of the association are only the general assembly and the board, but not the chairperson and the secretary-treasurer. However, it found other grounds for refusai. According to the court, the activity of the association, as defined in Art. 5 of the statute (public advocacy, dialogue with authorities and institutions on the Macedonian issue) contradicts Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, which prohibits organisations whose activities are directed against the "unity of the nation". According to the court, the provision of Article 4 of the statute of the association,
10 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
insofar as it provides for the existence of a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, also contradicts Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution.
The applicant association appealed. With Decision .Mi 1452 of 21 July 2020, the SCA upheld the decision of the BRC. In its reasons, the SCA points out two inconsistencies of the statute of the association with the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria: 1. Contradiction with Article 6, para. 2 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination and privileges based, inter alia, on "nationality, ethnicity, and origin". 2. Sorne of the goals of the association set out in the association's statute suggest the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity "constituting a minority and disenfranchised" and call for the defence of the "Macedonian cause". According to the SCA, however, "there is no separate Macedonian ethnie group in the Republic of Bulgaria". Therefore, the goals of the association and the means for achieving them "constitute activities against the unity of the Bulgarian nation and the territorial integrity of our country" in violation of Article 44, para. 2 of the Constitution.
On 5 April 2021 the "UMO Ilinden" received another refusai from the RA, even though it presented for registration an amended statute. The reasons were the same as with the previous applications - that the association's goals under Article 5, para. 5 of its statute impose on the state unacceptable obligations, i.e. to ensure radio and TV transmissions in the Macedonian language from the Republic of North Macedonia. The RA official also reasoned that at its founding assembly the association elected all its members into its governing board, which is un-acceptable. The RA official also thought that the association should register in public rather than in private benefit. The "UMO Ilinden" appealed this refusal in the BRC, which has not issued a decision yet.
CONCLUSION
Since the last review of this group of judgment the situation with their execution not only did not improve, but worsened. Despite the October 2020 interim resolution. the RA and the courts continued to issue refusais on the new applications for registration of Macedonian organisations on grounds that have been considered by the ECtHR in a number of judgments and declared contrary to the Convention standards. Moreover, they started adding explicitly discriminatory reasons. After the July 2020 dissolution of the "Civil Association for the Protection of Fundamental Individual Rights" it became clear that the Macedonian organisations can not enjoy legal certainty and pursue their goals even after registration and on
11 DH-DD(2021)448: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in UMO ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
the sole basis of their Macedonian character. Such a situation is entirely intolerable in a democratic society and is a mockery with both the ECtHR past judgments and the Committee of Ministers efforts to ensure their execution. It is hard to see any adequate response to it other than infringement proceedings. The Committee of Ministers should initiate infringement proceedings in response to the Government's continued disregard of its recommendations and to ensure undertaking of further legislative and other measures for the execution of this group of judgments.
Chairperson, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
7 Varbitsa str., 1504-Sofia, Bulgaria
12