## Facts

- Three Polish nationals founded an association intended to be registered as the “Union of People of Silesian Nationality.”
- The association’s name and objectives identified its members as persons of “Silesian nationality,” and the founders sought registration under domestic association law.
- Registration carried potential electoral significance because organizations treated as “national minorities” could obtain advantages under Poland’s election rules, including exemption from an electoral threshold.
- A domestic first-instance court initially approved registration.
- On appeal by the regional governor, the appellate court set aside the approval and refused registration, reasoning that the proposed name/objectives were misleading because Polish law did not recognize a Silesian national minority in the relevant sense.
- The Polish Supreme Court dismissed the founders’ further appeal and maintained the refusal to register.
- The founders complained that refusal to register violated their freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether refusal to register the association constituted an interference with Article 11 freedom of association.
2. If so, whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim (including preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others), and was necessary in a democratic society.
3. Whether the State could restrict use of a “national minority” label in association registration given the label’s implications for electoral rules.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that there was no violation of Article 11.
- The refusal to register was an interference with Article 11 because registration was a practical precondition for the association to function legally.
- The interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, including preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others through protection of democratic institutions and election procedures.
- The Court found a pressing social need and proportionality: the measure chiefly regulated the legal designation implying “national minority” status and related electoral consequences, rather than prohibiting collective activity to pursue cultural-identity goals.
- Because the restriction did not reach the core of the applicants’ ability to associate for shared interests, the measure fell within the State’s margin of appreciation.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of association is closely linked to democracy and pluralism; restrictions require convincing and compelling reasons.
- Article 11 protection is particularly important for persons belonging to minorities; associations may be central to expressing, preserving, and developing minority identity.
- A democratic society requires fair treatment of minorities and limits on majority dominance, but minority protection does not eliminate all regulatory discretion.
- Contracting States are not obliged by international law to adopt a single concept of “national minority” or to create a formal recognition procedure.
- Regulation focused on an association’s legally operative label—especially where the label triggers electoral-law effects—may be treated as less intrusive than a ban on association activity and can be justified if proportionate.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber concluded that Poland’s refusal to register an association under a “Silesian national minority” designation, given the designation’s legal and electoral implications, was a lawful and proportionate restriction necessary in a democratic society, and therefore did not violate Article 11.


Gorzelik v. Pol., App. No. 44158/98 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Grand Chamber Feb. 17, 2004)