GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT – JOINT CONCURRING OPINION 47 OF JUDGES COSTA AND ZUPANČIČ JOINED BY JUDGE KOVLER from the electoral “threshold” requirement. Section 5 of the 1993 Elections Act, which is cited in paragraph 41 of the judgment, is not devoid of ambiguity. Outwardly, it appears to give the State Electoral College the power to grant or refuse exemption. The Supreme Court was alert to this problem of construction. In finding that, on the contrary, the Electoral College's hands were tied and it was bound to grant exemption if the applicant electoral committee was a registered organisation of a national minority, it followed the authoritative interpretation given by the Polish Constitutional Court in this respect in its decision of 30 April 1997 (reproduced in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment). While the Supreme Court openly acknowledged (see paragraph 36 of the judgment) that decisions of the Constitutional Court no longer had universally binding force, it stressed the persuasiveness of the Constitutional Court's reasons, and that is indeed a factor that cannot be neglected. 10. At this point in our analysis, we have to admit that it would be presumptuous to contest the two highest Polish courts' interpretation of domestic law; here, the principle of subsidiarity commands restraint. We have, therefore, overcome our initial hesitations on this point: it must be accepted that registration would have permitted the Union to acquire electoral privileges which the Constitution and law restrict to purely “national” minorities and that such privileges derogate from the constitutional principle requiring equality before the law. 11. How, though, can the present decision be reconciled with the Court's decisions in two other, comparatively recent, cases? In one of these, Sidiropoulos and Others, which has already been cited, the applicants had formed a “Macedonian” association and the Court found that the Greek judicial authorities' refusal to register it had infringed Article 11 of the Convention. In the other, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX), the Court likewise found a violation of Article 11, owing to a ban on peaceful assembly. But is it the Court's role to treat the “Silesian minority” more severely and the “Macedonian minority” with greater indulgence? 12. That, of course, is not the issue. In Sidiropoulos and Others, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case the association did not represent a genuine danger to public order or the territorial integrity of Greece. Likewise, in Stankov, the Court considered on the facts that there was no foreseeable risk that the planned meetings would lead to violent action, incitement to violence or the rejection of democratic principles. The most important aspect for the Court, therefore, will be the factual assessment, at the risk of attracting the criticism of casuistry (which in our view is inevitable) that is often levelled at it. Ultimately, the decisive factor for us in the present case was the fact that the association would not only have existed, but also have been registered, if it had changed its name and amended paragraphs 10 and 30 of its memorandum of association, as it had