003-5697879-7227999

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Press release issued by the Registrar     13.12.2001   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA   AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment in the case of   Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova (no. 45701/99); the judgment is   not final1.   The Court held unanimously:   that there had been violations of Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and   that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been violations of Article 14   (prohibition of discrimination) read together with Article 9 and of Articles 6 (right to a   fair trial) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants   EUR 27,025 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for legal costs and expenses. The   judgment is in the French language only.   1. Principal facts   The case concerns an application lodged by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia   (Mitropolia Basarabiei şi Exarhatul Plaiurilor) and eleven Moldovan nationals, Mr Petru   Păduraru, Mr Petru Buburuz, Mr Ioan Eşanu, Mr Victor Rusu, Mr Anatol Goncear,   Mr Valeriu Cernei, Mr Gheorghe Ioniţă, Mr Valeriu Matciac, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr Anatol   Telembici and Mr Alexandru Magola. Some of the applicants live in Chişinău; the others live   in various other Moldovan towns. The applicants hold official positions in the applicant   church.   The case concerns the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant (Orthodox   Christian) church. The refusal was upheld on 9 December 1997 by a final judgment of the   Supreme Court of Justice. That court held that the question of recognition of the applicant   church could be resolved only by the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, which had been   recognised by the State and from which the applicant church had split, and that any   intervention in the conflict by the Moldovan authorities could only make matters worse. In   addition, it held that the applicants and the other adherents of the applicant church could   freely practise their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.   1. Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a   Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the   17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a   serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue   of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or   issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber   judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not   intend to make a request to refer.   - 2 -   2. Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 June 1998   and referred to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. It was declared   admissible on 7 June 2001. A hearing was held on 2 October 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President,   Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch),   Luigi Ferrari Bravo1 (Italian),   Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),   Josep Casadevall (Andorran),   Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian),   Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), judges,   and also Michael O’Boyle, Section Registrar.   3. Summary of the judgment2   Complaints   Relying on Article 9, the applicants complained of the Moldovan State’s refusal to recognise   the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia as a church and alleged that under the relevant   domestic legislation a religious denomination could not be active inside Moldovan territory   unless it had first been recognised by the authorities. The applicants further alleged a   violation of Article 6 § 1 and complained that the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise   the applicant church prevented it from obtaining legal personality, so that it had been   deprived of the right of access to a court in order to obtain a ruling on any complaint relating   to its rights, and in particular its property rights. Relying on Article 9 read together with   Article 14, they alleged that, in the exercise of the rights derived from the freedom to   manifest one’s religion through observance, the applicant church was the victim of   discrimination based on religion since it was not entitled to judicial protection. They further   complained of a violation of Article 11 on account of the authorities’ refusal to recognise the   applicant church, coupled with their stubborn determination to regard the applicants as   members of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. Lastly, the applicants alleged a violation of   Article 13, asserting that in view of the absence of legal protection for the applicant church   they did not have an effective remedy before a national authority to which they could submit   the complaints they had raised before the Court.   1. Judge elected in respect of San Marino.   2. This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.   - 3 -   Decision of the Court   Article 9   The Court noted that as the applicant church had not been recognised it could not operate. In   particular, its priests could not take divine service, its members could not meet to practise   their religion and, not having legal personality, it was not entitled to judicial protection of its   assets. Accordingly, the Court took the view that the Moldovan Government’s refusal to   recognise the applicant church constituted interference with the right of that church and the   other applicants to freedom of religion, as guaranteed by Article 9 § 1. Without giving a   categorical answer to the question whether the provisions of the Religious Denominations   Act of 24 March 1992 satisfied the requirements of foreseeability and precision, the Court   was prepared to accept that the interference in question was “prescribed by law” before   deciding whether it pursued a “legitimate aim” and was “necessary in a democratic society”.   It considered that in the present case the interference complained of pursued a legitimate aim   for the purposes of Article 9 § 2, namely the protection of public order and public safety.   The Court held that in taking the view that the applicant church was not a new denomination   and in making its recognition depend on the will of a recognised ecclesiastical authority, the   Metropolitan Church of Moldova, the Government had failed to discharge their duty of   neutrality and impartiality. With regard to the tolerance allegedly shown by the respondent   Government towards the applicant church and its members, the Court did not accept that this   was a substitute for recognition, since recognition alone could confer rights on the applicants.   Moreover, it noted that on a number of occasions the applicants had been unable to defend   themselves against acts of intimidation, since the authorities had ruled that only lawful   activities could enjoy legal protection. Lastly, it noted that before recognising other religious   denominations the authorities had not applied the criteria they made use of in order to deny   recognition to the applicant church and that no justification had been put forward by the   Moldovan Government for this difference in treatment.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the refusal to recognise the applicant church had   such consequences for the applicants’ freedom of religion that it could not be regarded as   proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It had not therefore been necessary in a   democratic society and there had been a violation of Article 9.   Article 13   The Court noted that, in its judgment of 9 December 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice had   held that the Government’s refusal to reply to the application for recognition submitted by the   applicant church was not unlawful, nor was it in breach of Article 9 of the Convention, since   the applicants could manifest their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.   However, in making that ruling the Supreme Court of Justice had not replied to the   applicants’ main complaints, namely their wish to meet to practise their religion collectively   within a church distinct from the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, and to have the right of   access to a court to defend their rights and protect their property, given that only   denominations recognised by the State enjoyed legal protection. Accordingly, not being   - 4 -   recognised by the State, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia had no rights which it could   assert in the Supreme Court of Justice. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice under   Article 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure was therefore not effective.   The Court further noted that although the Religious Denominations Act of 24 March 1992   required religious denominations to be recognised by the Government and to comply with   Moldovan legislation, it did not contain any specific provision governing the recognition   procedure or making remedies available in the event of a dispute.   The Court accordingly took the view that the applicants had not been able to obtain redress   before a national authority in respect of their complaint concerning their right to freedom of   religion. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.   * * *   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights   F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex   Contacts:Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with   alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998   a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time   Commission and Court.