print

Objectives and Activities

A. C. R. E. P. v Portugal (decision), 16 October 1995 [ECtHR]

Case no 23892/94

In this context, the Commission notes that a large number of the provisions of the applicant association's Memorandum were held to be contrary to the law and to public policy. Admittedly, the applicant association disputes these findings, but that is a question of interpretation of domestic law and the Commission cannot substitute its judgment m this field for that of the domestic courts. Its exclusive task is to examine whether the disputed measures were compatible with the requirements of the Convention and, in particular, whether the grounds on which the domestic courts took those decisions are relevant and sufficient in relation to the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Convention.

In this regard, the Commission notes that it follows from the applicant association's aim as defined in its Memorandum that it claims the power to award medals, honours and tides under what it calls the revived monarchial laws." The Commission observes that the applicant association is thus claiming prerogatives which are normally the exclusive domain of States Further, the association intends to carry

out this activity under the provisions of the Monarchial Constitution of 1838, without taking account of the present Constitution of Portugal.

The Commission considers that such an aim cannot be considered as compatible with Portuguese public policy.

Taking into consideration the grounds on which the domestic courts based their decisions, in particular those given by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 6 October 1993, and m view of the applicant association's aim as defined by its Memorandum, the Commission considers that the disputed dissolution could also be considered as necessary in a democratic society, taking account of the margin of appreciation which States have in this field.

It follows that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention and the application must therefore be dismissed as manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 27 para 2 of the Convention

back
Submit Information

 

Search

Enter Keyword



Select one or several topic(s)

 

Jurisprudence

Threat to democracy Threat to national security and public order Threat to national security, public order and territorial integrity Threat to national security and public safety Threat to public order Threat to public order and public safety Threat to public order and rights of freedoms of others Threat to religious neutrality, public order and territorial integrity Threat to rights and freedoms of others Legitimacy of seeking legal and constitutional change Inadmissible objects and activities Breach of constitutional or criminal law Threat to public health and morals