Case no 14223/88
The Commission notes that the first question which arises in this case is whether the fact that the Prefect lodged an objection to the association's registration constituted an interference within the meaning of Article 11 para. 1 of the Convention.
It notes that under local law recognition of an association's legal personality is dependent on its registration, but that an unregistered association can nevertheless be freely formed and engage in certain activities, just as it can possess funds through its members.
The information provided by the parties leaves open to doubt the question whether the fact that the association was unable to register prevented it from pursuing its objectives and thus constituted interference with the applicant's right to freedom of association.
However, the Commission considers that this question can remain unanswered, because, even supposing that there was an interference, that interference would have been justified under paragraph 2 of Article II of the Convention, for the following reasons.