Gorzelik and Others v. Poland
Gorzelik (2004) is one of the few cases where the ECtHR explicitly addressed the issue of conceptualization of minorities. The applicants had been refused permission to register their association “Union of People of Silesian Nationality”, on the grounds that such a nation or national minority does not exist in Poland. The ECtHR conducted its standard analysis regarding the justification of the interference with freedom of association (Article 11 ECHR). Examining whether the restriction was prescribed by law,the Court saw no problem in that the Polish legislation did not define national minorities, and left the interpretation of the notion to practice. For the ECtHR, „such a definition would be very difficult to formulate”, furthermore, State practice regarding official recognition of minorities varies from country to country. The Court then proceeded to look at the legitimate aim of the restriction. In line with its established practice, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with freedom of association is one that springs from democratic society. Associations seeking an ethnic identity or asserting minority consciousness are important to the proper functioning of democracy, as they contribute to diversity, and „may be instrumental in helping a minority to preserve its rights”. Yet, under the circumstances, the national authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation in considering that there was a pressing social need, to regulate the free choice of associations to call themselves an “organisation of a national minority”, in order to avoid a future abuse of electoral privileges and thereby prevent disorder and protect the rights of others. Regarding proportionality, the Court found that the refusal of registration did not amount „to a denial of the distinctive ethnic and cultural identity of Silesians”. Indeed, the disputed restriction was essentially concerned with the label which the association could use in law rather than with its ability “to act collectively in a field of mutual interest”. As such, it cannot be considered disproportionate to the aims pursued.