4.  Mr Koretskyy was born in 1955, Mr Tolochko and Mr Lobytskyy were born in 1975, and Mr Gorbal was born in 1978. All the applicants live in Kyiv. 5.  On 7 June 2000 the applicants and two other persons founded an association named “Civic Committee for the Preservation of Wild (Indigenous) Natural Areas in Bereznyaky[1]” (“Громадянський Комітет за збереження дикої (корінної) природи Березняків”, the “Civic Committee”). Mr Koretskyy was elected as the Civic Committee’s head. 6.  On 27 July 2000 the applicants filed an application for the State registration of the Civic Committee together with a copy of its articles of association with the Kyiv City Department of Justice (the “City Department”). 7.  The Civic Committee’s articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows: 1. General provisions
“1.1. The Civic Committee ... (hereafter – the Committee) is a voluntary association of citizens, non-governmental organisations, and other legal entities, which unite their efforts in joint activities [aiming at the] preservation of wild (indigenous) natural systems in cities and towns. 1.4. The activities of the Committee are to be carried out on the territory of Kyiv. The Committee may have representative offices in other cities and towns of Ukraine.
...” 2. Principles of the Committee’s activities
“2.1. The Committee’s activities shall be based on the principles of:
a) democracy;
b) legality;
c) self-government;
d) equality of members;
e) openness;
f) combination of local actions with global thinking;
g) active creative initiative of the broader community.” 3. Aim of the Committee
“3.1. The Committee was founded with the aim of protecting natural systems from their complete destruction in the process of urbanisation and from their replacement by artificial biomes in the process of urban development and growth. 3.2. The aim of the Committee is to preserve the remaining indigenous natural areas on the territory of the contemporary residential area of Bereznyaky.” 4. Tasks and areas of activities of the Committee
“4.1. The Committee ... shall have the task of taking concrete action to raise awareness among urban planners, members of bodies of local self-government, and the general public about ... the difference between indigenous natural systems and artificial natural systems in cities and towns, of the possible consequences of the loss of samples of natural ecosystems, as well as [the task of] coordinating joint activities of public authorities, non-governmental organisations, and the general public [aimed at] the prevention of such consequences, the result of which should be the preservation of indigenous biomes as natural samples. 4.2. According to [its] aim and tasks the Committee shall perform its activities in the following areas:
a) collection of information concerning the indigenous nature of Bereznyaky;
b) collection and study of world experience of coexistence of cities and natural systems;
c) creation and development of a publicly accessible electronic database;
d) cultural, educational, publishing, and informational activities;
e) lobbying of issues connected with the preservation of natural ecosystems with the national and local authorities;
...” 5. Rights of the Committee
“5.1. ... the Committee shall have the right:
a) to take part in civil law relations, to acquire pecuniary and non-pecuniary rights;
...
d) to [disseminate] propaganda, and [carry out]cultural and educational activities;
...
h) to set up entities and organisations, to set up media, and to perform publishing activities;
i) to carry out non-governmental ecological expert examinations;
... 5.2. In order to fulfil its tasks the Committee shall have the right to carry out the necessary economic (“господарську”) and other commercial activities by means of establishing legal entities.” 6. Membership of the Committee
“6.1. Membership in the Committee may be individual, collective, honorary, as well as [through] voluntary participation (“в якості волонтерів”);
... 6.4. Citizens of Ukraine and other States who share the ideology and participate in certain projects and actions [of the Committee] for free, may become volunteers of the Committee;
...” 7.11. The Executive Board of the Committee shall be responsible for the financial administration of projects, the accounting of the Committee, and manage everyday administrative (“господарчу”) and financial activities to ensure the implementation of projects.
...” 8.  On an unspecified date the application and articles of association were returned to the applicants and they were advised to make changes to the text, which were noted down by the City Department in the same documents. In particular, several sentences and paragraphs were crossed out, including paragraphs 3.1, 5.1 (d), and 6.4. Some other parts of the articles were rephrased or amended, like, for instance, the word “lobbying” in paragraph 4.2 (e) was replaced by “submission of propositions” and the phrase “to carry out non-governmental ecological expert examinations” in paragraph 5.1 (i) was reformulated to the effect that the Civic Committee could carry out ecological expert examination on a “voluntary basis”. 9.  According to the applicants, on 6 September 2000 they submitted the redrafted version of the articles of association, in which the Department’s corrections were only partially accepted. The Government denied this. 10.  By letter of 18 September 2000, the City Department informed the applicants of its refusal to register the Civic Committee on the ground that its articles had not been drafted in accordance with the domestic law. In particular, the Civic Committee’s status was not indicated; the provision that the Civic Committee could have representative offices in other cities and towns of Ukraine did not correspond to the provision that its activities were to be carried out on the territory of Kyiv; the articles listed two aims of the organisation instead of one aim and tasks; the Executive Board of the Civic Committee was entrusted with economic (“господарські”) functions while section 24 of the Associations of Citizens Act envisaged that the economic activities of an association could only be carried through separate legal entities which it could establish for that specific purpose; and the provisions that the Civic Committee could carry out publishing activities on its own and involve volunteers in its activities as members were contrary to the same law. Finally, the applicants had not taken into account all the corrections made to the text of the articles of association and they had submitted a copy of the document showing that they had paid registration fees, while the original was required. 11.  In a letter of 20 September 2000, received by the City Department on 25 September 2000, Mr Koretskyy, acting on behalf of the Civic Committee as its head, stated that the Department had not taken into account the amended version of the Civic Committee’s articles lodged with it on 6 September 2000. He asked the Department to reconsider its decision in the light of the amended version of the articles of association, the additional copies of which he could submit if the Department wished. 12.  By letter of 24 October 2000, the City Department acknowledged receipt of the applicants’ letter of 20 September 2000 and, referring to its letter of 18 September 2000, informed them that the articles of association could not be examined if they had not been re-drafted in compliance with the law. The Department also informed them that its refusal to register the Civic Committee could be challenged before the courts. 13.  The applicants continued to carry out certain activities of the Civic Committee, in particular, publishing articles on its behalf in various newspapers. 14.  On 30 November 2000 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, seeking the annulment of the City Department’s decision not to register the Civic Committee. They alleged a violation of their right to form an association and the right to freely choose its aims and areas of activities. They also argued that the reasons for the refusal to register their association had been based on an incorrect interpretation and application of the relevant law by the City Department. Furthermore, according to them, the City Department had failed to take into account the amended version of the articles of association, which they annexed to their complaint to the court. 15.  On 13 March 2001 the court rejected the applicants’ complaint as unsubstantiated. On 28 August 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. 16.  The courts held that the refusal to register the Civic Committee had been lawful, since the articles of association contained textual discrepancies with the relevant provisions of the domestic legislation. In particular, the aim of the Civic Committee was not defined correctly and did not correspond to the requirements of sections 3 and 13 of the Associations of Citizens Act. The provisions of paragraphs 1.4, 5.1, and 7.11 of the articles of association authorising the Executive Board of the Civic Committee to carry out “everyday administrative and financial” activities and envisaging that the Civic Committee could perform publishing activities were not in compliance with sections 9 and 24 of that law. The wording of paragraphs 6.1 and 6.4 of the articles of association as regards the participation of volunteers in the Civic Committee’s activities contravened the principle of equality of members of an association embodied in section 6 of the law. 17.  The courts also noted that the applicants had failed to submit a corrected version of the articles of association, while the versions they had filed with the courts had not been drafted in compliance with the law. 18.  On 14 March 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ request for leave to appeal in cassation, finding no grounds for examination of the case by the Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court. 19.  On 7 July 2002 the applicants decided to liquidate the Civic Committee and discontinued its activities.