8 GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT We suggest that you rely on the fact that the [Council of Europe] Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities [('the Framework Convention')] has not been ratified by Poland, so that its provisions [do not apply in the domestic legal system]. ... In our view, neither historical nor ethnographical circumstances justify the opinion that the inhabitants of Silesia can be recognised as a national minority.” The relevant parts of the letter of 10 April 1997 read as follows: “... The arguments advanced by the provisional management committee of the association [in their pleading of 13 March 1997] do not contain any new elements; [in particular] ... the [Framework Convention] does not constitute the law applicable in Poland. Likewise, the letters of the Ministry of the Interior [on the interpretation of the National and Ethnic Minorities Bill] do not change the situation. The sense of belonging to a nation falls within the realm of personal liberties; it does not in itself entail any legal consequences. [By contrast,] the formation of an organisation of a national minority is a legal fact which entails legal consequences such as, for instance, those referred to in the 1993 Elections Act. In the circumstances, the registration of the association called 'Union of People of Silesian Nationality' could be allowed provided that the existence of such a nation had been established.” 27. On 28 April 1997 the applicants submitted a further pleading to the court. They criticised the arguments of the Ministry of the Interior, pointing out that the latter had failed to indicate any legal basis for rejecting their application. In particular, the authorities had not shown that any provision of the memorandum of association was contrary to the law, whereas, under section 1(2) of the Law on associations, “the [exercise of the] right of association may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary for ensuring the interests of national security or public order and for the protection of health and morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. Lastly, the applicants stated that they would not amend the memorandum of association in the manner proposed by the authorities, in particular in respect of the name of the association and the content of paragraph 30. They agreed, however, to amend paragraph 10 of the memorandum and rephrased it as follows: “Everyone who is a Polish citizen and who has submitted a written declaration stating that he is of Silesian nationality may become an ordinary member [of the Union].” 28. On 23 May 1997 the Katowice Regional Court held an “explanatory hearing” (posiedzenie wyjaśniające) aimed at obtaining comments and clarifications from the parties and settling the matters in dispute. The relevant parts of the minutes of that hearing read as follows: “The representatives of the [Governor] declared that the deletion of paragraph 30 from the memorandum of association would not be sufficient, and that they also required a change in the name of the association.