The International Journal
of Not-for-Profit Law
Volume 4, Issue 2-3, March 2002
A publication of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law
Articles
Charity Law and Alienation in Northern Ireland: The Findings of a Research Project and the Resonance Between Events in New York and Belfast
By Kerry J. O'Halloran
Freedom of Association in a Nigerian Community - Old Usages, New Rules
By Emeka Iheme
Liability of Not-for-Profit Organizations and Insurance Coverage for Related Liability
By Jerold Oshinsky and Gheiza M. Dias
El Proceso de Reforma del Heptaedro Legal del Tercer Sector
By Antonio L. Itriago Machado y Miguel Angel Itriago Machado
Reviews
American Foundations: An Investigative History
By Mark Dowie
Reviewed by Robert O. Bothwell
Case Notes
Central and Eastern Europe:
Poland
North America:
Canada
European Court of Human Rights:
Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v. Bulgaria (European Court of Human Rights: October 2001)
Country Reports
Asia Pacific:
China | Japan | Vietnam
Central and Eastern Europe:
Regional | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Croatia | Poland | Slovakia | Republic of Srpska
Latin America and the Caribbean:
Regional | Brazil | Nicaragua | Venezuela
Middle East and North Africa:
Egypt
Newly Independent States:
Armenia | Moldova | Tajikistan
North America:
Canada
South Asia:
India
Western Europe:
Regional | Austria | France
- - - - - - - - - -
Case Notes: European Court of Human Rights
Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v. Bulgaria (European Court of Human Rights: October 2001)
In a case that tracks the earlier freedom of association decisions involving NPOs in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights came out strongly in favor of freedom of expression and assembly rights for the members of the Ilinden Association. This organization sought to hold patriotic meetings and demonstrations about people it associated with Macedonian heritage and to do so in Bulgaria. Naturally such meetings and demonstrations would provoke some tension, but the Court did not think that prohibiting such meetings was appropriate under the European Convention. In other words, the Court held that the prohibition was not “ necessary in a democratic society.” The conclusion can be summed up in the following statement from the Court: “…if every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the sensitivity of the majority opinion.” This result in entirely consistent with the freedom of association cases discussed in previous issues and represents a true victory for freedom of expression and assembly. KWS