16.06.2013 Views

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3 ... - Giurisprudenza

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3 ... - Giurisprudenza

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3 ... - Giurisprudenza

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

PROCEDURE<br />

176<br />

<strong>FOGLI</strong> <strong>DI</strong> <strong>LAVORO</strong> <strong>per</strong> <strong>il</strong> <strong>Diritto</strong> <strong>internazionale</strong> 3/2008<br />

1. The case originated in an application (no. 58911/00)<br />

against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court<br />

under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human<br />

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five<br />

associations registered under German law, Leela Förderkreis<br />

e.V., Wies Rajneesh Zentrum für spirituelle Therapie und<br />

Meditation e.V., Osho Uta Lotus Commune e.V., Dharmadeep<br />

Verein für ganzheitliches Leben e.V. and Osho Meditations<br />

Center Berlin e.V. (“the applicant associations”), on 12 Apr<strong>il</strong><br />

2000.<br />

2. The applicant associations were represented by Mr C.<br />

Gambke, succeeded by Mr R. von Katzler, lawyers practising in<br />

Gräfelfing. The German Government (“the Government”) were<br />

represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel,<br />

Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.<br />

3. The applicant associations alleged, in particular, that the<br />

length of the proceedings before the domestic courts had been<br />

excessive and that the German authorities had interfered with<br />

their right to manifest their religious belief.<br />

4. On 26 June 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the<br />

application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article<br />

29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the<br />

application at the same time as its admissib<strong>il</strong>ity.<br />

5. The parties f<strong>il</strong>ed written observations (Rule 54A of the<br />

Rules of Court). In addition, third-party comments were<br />

received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights<br />

(Warsaw) which had been given leave by the President to<br />

intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the<br />

Convention and Rule 44 § 2).<br />

THE FACTS<br />

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<br />

6. The applicant associations are religious associations or<br />

meditation associations belonging to the Osho movement,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!