A/HRC/20/27 practice procedures which are simple, non-onerous or even free of charge (e.g. Bulgaria) and expeditious (e.g. Japan where registration applications may be directly filled in online). 58. The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that a “notification procedure”, rather than a “prior authorization procedure” that requests the approval of the authorities to establish an association as a legal entity, complies better with international human rights law and should be implemented by States. Under this notification procedure, associations are automatically granted legal personality as soon as the authorities are notified by the founders that an organization was created. In most countries, such notification is made through a written statement containing a number of elements of information clearly defined in the law, but this is not a precondition for the existence of an association. It is rather a submission through which the administration records the establishment of the said association. Such a notification procedure is in force in a number of countries (e.g. Cote d‟Ivoire, Djibouti, Morocco, Portugal, Senegal, Switzerland and Uruguay). 59. The Special Rapporteur believes the formation of branches of associations, foreign associations or unions or networks of associations, including at the international level, should be subject to the same notification procedure. 60. Under both notification and prior authorization regimes, registration bodies must be bound to act immediately and laws should set short time limits to respond to submissions and applications respectively. The Special Rapporteur echoes a ruling of the European Court which provided that “significant delays in the registration procedure, if attributable to the Ministry of Justice, amounts to an interference with the exercise of the right of the association‟s founders to freedom of association”.36 During this period associations should be presumed to be operating legally until it is proven otherwise (e.g. Uruguay). Failure to provide a response within a clear and short time limit should result in a presumption that associations are operating legally (e.g. Austria). 61. Any decision rejecting the submission or application must be clearly motivated and duly communicated in writing to the applicant. Associations whose submissions or applications have been rejected should have the opportunity to challenge the decision before an independent and impartial court. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur refers to a decision of the Freedom of Association Committee of the International Labour Organization (ILO), in which it ruled that “the absence of recourse to a judicial authority against any refusal by the Ministry to grant an authorization to establish a trade union violates the principles of freedom of association”.37 62. Newly adopted laws should not request all previously registered associations to reregister so that existing associations are protected against arbitrary rejection or time gaps in the conduct of their activities. For instance, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its concluding observations on Nepal, expressed concerns over the wide-ranging restrictions, such as re-registration requirements, placed by the authorities on civil society organizations (CRC/C/15/Add.260, paras. 33 and 34). 3. The right to operate freely and to be protected from undue interference (a) Positive obligation 63. The right to freedom of association obliges States to take positive measures to establish and maintain an enabling environment. It is crucial that individuals exercising this 36 37 European Court of Human Rights, Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, application No. 4439/04, 17 January 2008, para. 48. Digest of decisions and principles, para. 274. 15