Judgment Sagir and Others v. Greece - European court considers it necessary that Greek courts re-examine refusal to register Turkish women's association

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 152 (2025)   24.06.2025   Refusal to register Turkish women’s association violated right to freedom of   association   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Sagir and Others v. Greece (application no. 34724/18)   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the refusal of the authorities to register the Cultural Association of Turkish   Women of the Prefecture of Xanthi.   The Court found in particular that the refusal to register the association had been based on the need   to distinguish between a recognised Muslim minority and an unrecognised Turkish minority. It had not   been justified by a threat to public order, and had not pursued a “pressing social need”.   The Court also stated, under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments) that it would   be appropriate for the Greek courts to allow this case to be reopened, should that be requested by   the applicants.   Principal facts   The applicants are seven Greek nationals who live in Xanthi (Greece).   The applicants were all members of the Cultural Association of Turkish Women of the Prefecture of   Xanthi (Πολιτιστικός Σύλλογος Τούρκων Γυναικών Ν. Ξάνθης). That association’s charter stated that   members could only be adult women of Greek nationality who were residents of the Prefecture of   Xanthi.   In December 2010 the applicants applied to have the association entered onto the local register of   associations. That application was dismissed by the Xanthi Court of First Instance, which found, in   particular, that “its name ..., which define[d] its identity, ... [was] objectively likely to create a   misleading image and cause confusion regarding the identity of its members” in particular as it   qualified its “members as Turkish, and not simply as Muslims of Greek nationality”. The applicants   appealed.   That appeal was dismissed by the Thrace Court of Appeal in April 2014, which stated that it was not   bound in this case by the European Court’s judgment in Emin and Others v. Greece (no. 34144/05), as   the reason invoked by domestic courts in that case was the contravention of the public order and not   the need to adhere to the principle of truth. A subsequent appeal on points of law before the Court   of Cassation was also unsuccessful in September 2017.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained of the refusal   to register their association.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 July 2018.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peeter Roosma (Estonia), President,   Darian Pavli (Albania),   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh (Ireland),   Mateja Đurović (Serbia),   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat (Andorra) and,   Vasilis Hatzopoulos (Greece), ad hoc Judge,   and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The parties did not dispute that there had been a refusal to register the Cultural Association of Turkish   Women of the Prefecture of Xanthi, which had been an interference with the applicants’ right to   freedom of association. The basis for that decision was set out in law (Articles 79 to 81 of the Civil   Code). The Court noted that the decision had also had a legitimate aim, specifically that understanding   the true identity of the members of an association was in the interests of protecting order, legal   certainty and stability in respect of legal matters.   As regards the necessity of this measure in a democratic society, the Court noted that the Greek courts   had found that the proposed title of the association had not complied with the “principle of truth”   and had been misleading. The courts had not stated that the name could either “threaten public   order” or the “internal legal order” as they had done in similar cases in the past. Essentially, the   reasoning had been based on the need to distinguish between a Muslim minority, which had been   recognised by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, and a Turkish minority, the existence of which was not   acknowledged by the national courts.   The Court reiterated that it had previously found in respect of circumstances similar to those of the   present case that even if the true purpose of the association had been to promote the existence of an   ethnic minority in Greece, that could not be regarded as a threat to democratic society. Furthermore,   pluralism, which was an essential part of a democratic society, was not possible without genuine   recognition of and respect for diversity. The Court also highlighted that the right to free self-   identification was a cornerstone of international law.   No threat to the public order could be identified in the name of the association. Therefore the refusal   to register the association had not been justified, and had not pursued a “pressing social need”. There   had been a violation of Article 11.   Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments)   The Court reiterated that under certain circumstances, it indicated specifically to a State what actions   to take to end a violation, in particular to end a systematic situation. Regarding this case it stated that   the reopening of proceedings before the Greek courts – if requested – would be the most appropriate   way of dealing with the violation in this case.   2 Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Greece was to pay each applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage, and jointly EUR 4,677.80 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3