May 03, 2007News: Ban of Warsaw Gay Pride in 2005 Illegal
By vanrozenheim
(Strasbourg, EU) - The then Mayor of Warsaw, Lech Kaczynski, who is now President of Poland, violated three Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights when he banned Warsaw Gay Pride in 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled this morning. The seven judges, including Judge Lech Garlicki from Poland, ruled unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association and assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention; and a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
The case was taken to Strasbourg by the Foundation for Equality (Fundacja Równości) and five of its members –Tomasz Bączkowski, Robert Biedroń, Krzysztof Kliszczyński, Inga Kostrzewa and Tomasz Szypuła, who are also members of non-governmental organisations that campaign on behalf gay men and women.
They complained that their right to peaceful assembly had been breached by the way in which the domestic authorities had applied relevant domestic law to their case. They also complained that they had not had at their disposal any procedure which would have allowed them to obtain a final decision before the date of the planned demonstrations.
And they further alleged that they had been treated in a discriminatory manner in that they had been refused permission to organise certain demonstrations whereas other organisers had obtained permission.
In its judgement, the Court “reiterated that it attached particular importance to pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness.
“Pluralism was also built on the genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions, ethnic and cultural identities, religious beliefs, artistic, literary and socio-economic ideas and concepts.
“The harmonious interaction of people and groups with varied identities was essential for achieving social cohesion.
“It was only natural that, where a civil society functioned in a healthy manner, the participation of citizens in the democratic process was to a large extent achieved through belonging to associations in which they might integrate with each other and pursue common objectives collectively.
“The positive obligation of a State to secure genuine and effective respect for freedom of association and assembly was of particular importance to those with unpopular views or belonging to minorities, because they were more vulnerable to victimisation.”
Today’s judgement becomes final in three months. Either party has the right to request a further hearing in the ‘Grand Chamber’ of 17 judges.
