CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 juillet 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 28626/95                       by Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova"                       (Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses)                       against Bulgaria           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 July 1997, the following members being present:                Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. BÉKÉS                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            MM.    R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV              Mr.    M. de SALVIA, Deputy Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 6 September 1995 by Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova" (Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses) against Bulgaria and registered on 21 September 1995 under file No. 28626/95;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 3 May       1996 and 2 April 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by       the applicant association on 21 June 1996 and 1 April 1997;   -      the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 3 July 1997;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is an association which bears the name Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova" (Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses).   Before the Commission it is represented by MM. Alain Garay and Philippe Goni, lawyers practising in Paris.         The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.   A.     Particular circumstances of the case                          The applicant association         There is disagreement between the parties as to the time when followers of Jehovah's Witnesses first appeared in Bulgaria.   The applicant association contends that there is information about Jehovah's Witnesses' presence as early as in 1888.   The Government maintain that they were unknown in Bulgaria before 1989.         According to the applicant association the number of its members and followers today in Bulgaria is between 500 and 1000.         On 30 January 1991 the applicant association was founded by five individuals at a meeting in Sofia.   The founders adopted a statute of the association and elected a four-member board.   The statute provided inter alia that the association's aims were: dissemination of the truths of the Bible, training of clergymen, establishment and enhancement of contacts among Jehovah's Witnesses in the country and from abroad, and promotion of such moral values as honesty, morality, rejection of drugs, alcohol and tobacco, respect for the family, and obedience to the State authorities.   It was also stated that the association would pursue its aims by organising, among other things, meetings of followers, translation and publication of religious materials and teaching.   Section 8 of the statute provided that a member is free to leave the association at any time.         The board members applied to the Sofia City Court (Gradski sad) for registration as a non-profit association under the Persons and Family Act (Zakon za litzata i semeistvoto).         The Court held a hearing on the matter with the participation of a prosecutor, who stated that the association should be registered as the legal requirements were met.   On 17 July 1991 the Court registered the applicant association, whereupon, in accordance with the   Persons and Family Act, it obtained legal personality.   In its decision the Court stated that all necessary documents had been presented and were in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Persons and Family Act.         The Public Prosecutor's Office (Prokuratura), whose task in registration proceedings is the defence of the public interest, did not challenge the applicant association's registration before the Supreme Court (Vathoven sad), as it could have done under the law within seven days.          Refusal of authorisation to the applicant association         On 18 February 1994 the Persons and Family Act was amended to the effect that religious associations were required to re-register subject to consent by the Council of Ministers (see below Relevant domestic law).   This amendment aimed at the unification of the legal regime in respect of religious organisations, because under the Religious Denominations Act (Zakon za izpovedaniata), a religious community needs the authorisation of the Council of Ministers in order to acquire the status of a recognised religious denomination.         On 23 March 1994 the applicant association submitted to the Council of Ministers a petition requesting authorisation for re- registration.   The judgment of the Sofia City Court of 17 July 1991 and the statute of the applicant association were enclosed therewith.         On several occasions during the following three months representatives of the applicant association unsuccessfully requested to meet officials from the Directorate of Religious Denominations (Direktzia po veroizpovedaniata) at the Council of Ministers in order to present their arguments on the matter.         On 17 June 1994 the daily newspaper "24 Hours" published an article which explained that the Council of Ministers had refused authorisation for the re-registration of 24 religious communities and named the applicant association and several others among them.         On 23 June 1994 the applicant association submitted a petition to the Council of Ministers citing the published information and asking for an official decision.         On 28 June 1994 the Council of Ministers adopted Decision No. 255 thereby granting authorisation for the registration of 17 associations and refusing it for 24 others including the applicant association.   The decision stated that it was based on Section 133a and the transitional provision of the Persons and Family Act; no further reasoning was provided.         The applicant association did not receive an official copy of this decision.   Members of the applicant association first became aware of its contents on 5 August 1994 during a police action in the town of Haskovo (see below Suppression of the applicant association's meetings).   On 9 September 1994 Decision No. 255 was published in the State Gazette, the official organ of the State.         On 15 September 1994 the applicant association appealed to the Supreme Court (Varhoven sad) against this decision.   In their written submissions the representatives of the applicant association stated inter alia that the decision contravened the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Zakon za administrativnoto proizvodstvo) and Article 6 of the Convention as no reasons whatsoever had been given for the refusal of authorisation.   Also, the decision amounted to a breach of the applicant's rights under the Constitution and under Articles 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Convention because Jehovah's Witnesses' activities did not fall within any of the grounds allowing restrictions on the exercise of the right to association, and of the freedoms of religion and of expression.         The applicant association further stated in brief some principles of Jehovah's Witnesses' religious philosophy emphasising their dedication to morality, respect for the public order and for the family.   Also, the history of their religion clearly showed that they attached utmost importance to peace and did "not take part in the wars of the nations", while having full respect for the convictions of others and, consequently, acknowledging and not interfering with the authority of the State to maintain armed forces.         The Council of Ministers made written submissions in response stating that Section 133a and the transitional provision of the Persons and Family Act did not place any restriction on the exercise of the Council of Ministers' discretion whether or not to authorise the registration of a religious association.   Therefore, and since the Supreme Court was not competent to examine on the merits a Council of Ministers' decision which had been within the latter's discretionary powers, the appeal was considered to be inadmissible.         Alternatively, the Council of Ministers contended that Decision No. 255 was in conformity with the Constitution and that the Council of Ministers had taken into account the "international practice and the social practice in the country".   Also, the decision was not arbitrary as it had been taken "on the basis of the assessments of various experts".         The Council of Ministers contended that the statute of the applicant association did not correspond to the essence of Jehovah's Witnesses' religion and to their practices "as they [were] known around the world".   This was so because, inter alia,              "... ninety-nine percent of the pertinent bibliography,       predominantly in English, indicate that notwithstanding the       allegation of Watch Tower, the managing body of [Jehovah's       Witnesses'] community, that their doctrine is Christian and that       it is based on the Bible, in fact it denies almost all basic       Christian concepts.   It is known that Jehovah's Witnesses have       made their own translation of the Bible, which is a forgery from       a linguistic and a historical point of view."         Also, it was not true that Jehovah's Witnesses had respect for the law and for the public order.   Rather, "it [was] well known that they [had] a doctrine requiring the replacement of the civil society by a theocratic society, which [was] contrary to the Constitution of Bulgaria".   Furthermore, it was forbidden for Jehovah's Witnesses to take oath before the national flag or to honour other State symbols, as well as to serve in the army.   In fact, this had been admitted by the applicant association which had stated in its appeal that its followers did not take part in wars.         Moreover, Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of blood transfusions was contrary to the law and deprived the members of the religious group of their constitutional right of choice in respect of their health and life.    Also, the creed at issue involved the devaluation of human life, a hostile attitude towards science, labelled as devil's act, and incitement to social marginalisation.   Many authors had found that the level of psychiatric illnesses among Jehovah's Witnesses was higher than among other people.   Moreover, there had been cases of mass suicide.         The Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter.   In response to the Government's submissions, the applicant association stated inter alia that it was absurd to accept that the Council of Ministers could enjoy a discretion beyond the provisions of the Constitution and the Convention and that therefore the Supreme Court was competent to examine the constitutionality of the impugned decision.         On 13 March 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.   The judgment, insofar as relevant, states as follows:   <Translation>              "I.    As to the admissibility of the appeal.              ... the [Supreme Court's] competence to examine disputes as       regards the lawfulness of the Council of Ministers' acts is       derived from Section 125 para. 2 of the Constitution and Section       99 para. 2 of the Act on the Judiciary ...   Therefore, the       Supreme Court is competent to examine the lawfulness of the       impugned decision.              II.    On the merits.              Examined on the merits, the appeal is ill-founded.              Under the new Section 133a and the first paragraph of the       transitional provision of the Persons and Family Act, the Council       of Ministers is empowered to authorise the registration of legal       persons, which are non-profit associations ... [engaged in       religious activities].   This legal regime does not provide for       the participation of the petitioner in the process of the       examination of the petition.              The limitations on religious denominations are enunciated       in the provisions of Section 37 para. 2 of the Constitution and       Article 9 para. 2 of the Convention, which is in force in respect       of Bulgaria as from 7 September 1992.   The question whether the       aims declared in the [applicant association's] draft statute of       association are in compliance with the exhaustive list of       limitations contained in the above provisions, is within the       competence of the highest organ of the executive power, who       decides on the basis of its free assessment.   The judicial       control of lawfulness in such a case is limited to an examination       whether the impugned act is within the administrative organ's       competence and whether it complies with the procedural and       substantial legal requirements as regards its adoption.              In the present case the Council of Ministers, when adopting       the impugned refusal, acted within its competence under the law       (Section 133a of the Persons and Family Act).   The competence       requirements and the procedure for the examination of the       petition were respected.   The act has a reasoning, as the legal       ground for its adoption was indicated.              The issue whether the draft statute of the [applicant       association] is in conformity with the limitations provided for       by law is within the competence of the Council of Ministers and       cannot be the subject to the present judicial control."         It appears that despite Decision No. 255 of the Council of Ministers and its confirmation by the Supreme Court, the applicant association's registration at the Sofia City Court remained intact. However, on an unspecified date in 1997 a prosecutor requested the Sofia City Court to annul this registration.             Suppression of the applicant association's meetings         On 5 August 1994 in the town of Haskovo police officers blocked the entrance of the convention hall where Jehovah's Witnesses were holding a national meeting with the participation of about 400 persons. The police explained that Jehovah's Witnesses had been refused authorisation by the Council of Ministers and that they had not requested permission from the mayor for their convention.   The police produced a copy of Decision No. 255 of 28 June 1994 of the Council of Ministers.   The participants dispersed peacefully.         On 17 October 1994 the mayor of the town of Targovishte issued order No. 458 prohibiting the "use of municipal property for religious services and marches in the open [organised by] religious denominations which are not registered in the region of Targovishte municipality". Copies of the order were sent inter alia to the District Prosecutor's Office and to the police.         On 15 November 1994 the Director of Religious Denominations at the Council of Ministers sent a letter to the mayor of Sofia stating that he had information about public meetings of unregistered religious denominations, which had been held in municipal premises.   The letter stated further that " ... such associations do not enjoy the privileged status under the Religious Denominations Act (Zakon za izpovedaniata) with the ensuing consequences" and insisted that the production of a certificate for registration should be requested as a condition for renting municipal premises.   The Director also stated that on "special occasions" the assistance of the police should be sought "according to the criteria laid down in Section 37 para. 2 of the Constitution".         On 5 March 1995 in the town of Plovdiv five policemen armed with pistols and a carbine broke into a private apartment where about 30 Jehovah's Witnesses were holding a meeting and confiscated religious materials.   At least two persons were arrested, held at the police station for several hours and ordered to explain in writing the nature of the meeting.   They also had to sign warning forms, thereby undertaking not to engage in organised preaching for Jehovah's Witnesses and acknowledging that they were aware of the potential liability in case of non-compliance.         On 13 May 1995 in the town of Kiustendil the police disrupted a meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses and brought some of them to the police station.   At least one of the participants was interrogated by an investigating judge.   The questions concerned the nature of the Jehovah's Witnesses' creed, the names of members and followers in Kiustendil, the financial sources of the religious community and its links with foreigners.         Following some of the police actions complaints were submitted to the competent Prosecutor's Offices.   The results of any proceedings taken on this basis have not been disclosed.                     Seizure of books and other measures         Since May 1994 the Sofia customs office has refused to allow the importation of religious books sent to the address of the applicant association. The materials sent between 15 June and 1 July 1994 have been returned to the sender.         On 14 July 1994 Mr. B. and Ms. C., Jehovah's Witnesses from the town of Assenovgrad, were arrested for several hours as they were offering religious books to the public.   The books found in their possession were confiscated.   Mr. B. was allegedly beaten by the police.   On 27 July 1994 the director of the local police sent a letter to the municipal education authority indicating that Ms. C., who was a teacher, had been arrested while visiting private homes and distributing books of Jehovah's Witnesses, an activity "for which she had not obtained authorisation".   The letter further stated that Jehovah's Witnesses had been refused re-registration and that their activities were illegal.         On 24 September 1994 Ms. T. was arrested for several hours in the town of Razgrad and some 200 copies of religious materials were confiscated from her.   Similar arrests in Razgrad of two other Jehovah's Witnesses, again followed by seizures, took place on 23 and 28 January 1995.         On 8 March 1995 religious books were confiscated from three Jehovah's Witnesses in the town of Burgas.         On all occasions, when religious books were confiscated in various places of the country, the police filled out official forms for searches, seizures or for voluntary surrender of movables, which are normally used in the course of police inquiries and criminal proceedings.   Some forms indicated that the seizures had been effected in accordance with Sections 134 - 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Nakazatelno-protzesualen kodeks) (see below Relevant domestic law). Other forms did not state any legal basis.   Most of the documents did not contain any reference to particular criminal proceedings, the pertinent place which existed in some of the forms having been left blank.   Not all of the seizures had been authorised by a prosecutor in writing.         Between October 1994 and March 1995 three Polish citizens, who were followers of Jehovah's Witnesses, were expelled from the country. The decisions stated as grounds for the expulsions that the persons concerned were "members of and worked for Jehovah's Witnesses, a sect which is banned in the Republic of Bulgaria".                          Publications in the media         Since 1992 the Bulgarian press has been publishing numerous information and comments about religious "sects" and, in particular, about Jehovah's Witnesses.   The applicant association refer in particular to some 120 publications dating between March 1993 and July 1995, presented in full text or by their title.   The publications are from 23 newspapers.   The majority thereof contains information and allegations about, inter alia, unnatural practices and rituals, the incitement of young people to suicidal acts, and fraudulent preaching. Sects are often depicted as executors of the will of foreign powers and interests.         The Government dispute the pertinence of most of the press material stating that part of it concerns other sects, and that the choice of articles is arbitrary, the resulting impression not reflecting adequately the attitude of the press.   Thus, the press has published an interview with Mr. Garay, the applicant association's representative, and other material.         Some of the articles submitted by the applicant association contain interviews of the Director of Religious Denominations, who explained that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses was a threat to public health, morals and national security inter alia because it rejected blood transfusions, lacked respect for State symbols and for the law, and marginalised young people.    In an interview published on 8 November 1994 in "Trud" the Director stated inter alia that "it is established that Jehovah's Witnesses suffer from psychological problems, and that schizophrenia, neurosis, etc. occur more frequently among them."   In an article of 26 June 1996 the newspaper "24 hours" presented the following statement of Mr. K, from the Directorate of Religious Denominations: "[Jehovah's Witnesses] endanger the national security and the life of the people...   Different religious organisations which pursue political aims are entering Bulgaria..." In some other articles the police and the Bulgarian Orthodox Christian Church were mentioned as the sources of information as regards the alleged unnatural practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.         Some of the publications contain explanations from official sources as regards the legal meaning and the consequences of Decision No. 255 of the Council of Ministers.   Thus in his interview of 8 November 1994 the Director of Religious Denominations explained that any individual follower of Jehovah's Witnesses was "free to practise this religion, thus assuming a personal responsibility".   However, the State could not give "legal status" to sects whose practice had been contrary to the law.   Other publications cite sources from the police and local officials and qualify the unregistered sects as banned and the practice of their religion as strictly prohibited.         The press also covered extensively some police actions against the applicant association and other "sects".   Some journalists stated that certain police actions had been requested by the Directorate of Religious Denominations.   Many of these publications in various newspapers explained that the followers of unregistered sects were criminally liable for having participated in meetings or for possessing religious books and that proceedings against them were to be instituted.   Measures, such as seizures and arrests were depicted as a necessary and lawful consequence of the refusal of the Council of Ministers to authorise the registration of certain sects.   A large number of articles had titles which used shocking expressions.   Also, the majority of the publications urged the authorities to deal quickly and mercilessly with the sects.   In some articles the police was criticised as it allegedly did not act resolutely and in others it was praised for having dispersed meetings, confiscated books or arrested followers.         On several occasions the applicant association approached various privately owned newspapers with a request to publish responses to the allegations concerning Jehovah's Witnesses.   However, all newspapers allegedly refused to publish any statement or material offered by the applicant association.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice   1.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows:   <Translation>          Section 13              "(1) The religious denominations shall be free.              (2) The religious institutions shall be separate from the       State.              (3) Eastern Orthodox Christianity shall be considered the       traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria.              (4) Religious institutions and communities, and religious       beliefs shall not be used for political ends."          Section 37              "(1) The freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and       the choice of religion and of religious or atheistic views shall       be inviolable.   The State shall assist the maintenance of       tolerance and respect among the believers of different       denominations, and among believers and non-believers.              (2)    The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be       practised to the detriment of national security, public order,       public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of       others."   <Bulgarian>         Chlen 13        "(1) Veroizpovedaniata sa svobodni.        (2) Religioznite institutzii sa otdeleni ot darzhavata.        (3) Traditzionnata religia v Republika Bulgaria e iztochnopravoslavnoto veroizpovedanie.        (4) Religioznite obshtnosti i institutzii, kakto i verskite ubezhdenia ne mogat da se izpolzvat za politicheski tzeli."   Chlen 37        "(1) Svobodata na savestta, svobodata na misalta i na izbora na veroizpovedanie i na religiozni ili ateistichni vazgledi sa nenakarnimi. Darzhavata sadeistva za poddarzhane na tarpimost i uvazhenie mezhdu viarvashtite ot razlichni veroizpovedania, kakto i mezhdu viarvashti i neviarvashti.          (2) Svobodata na savestta i veroizpovedanieto ne mozhe da bade nasochena sreshtu natzionalnata sigurnost, obshtestvenia red, narodnotot zdrave i morala ili sreshtu pravata i svobodite na drugi grazhdani."         Decision No. 5 of the Constitutional Court of 11 June 1992 provides a legally binding interpretation of the above provisions.   It states inter alia that the legitimate grounds for interference with a person's freedom of religion as contained therein cannot be subject to lenient interpretations.   An act of Parliament can only determine the procedure for their enforcement.   <Translation>          Section 58 para. 2              "(2) Religious or other beliefs shall not be a ground to       refuse the discharge of obligations established under the       Constitution or Acts of Parliament."          Section 59              "(1) The defence of the fatherland shall be a duty and a       matter of honour of every Bulgarian citizen...              (2) The carrying out of military obligations, and the       conditions and procedure for exemption therefrom or for replacing       them with alternative service shall be established by an Act of       Parliament."   <Bulgarian>   Chlen 58 al. 2        "(2) Religioznite i drugite ubezhdenia ne sa osnovanie za otkaz da se izpalniavat zadalzheniata, ustanoveni v Konstitutziata i zakonite."   Chlen 59        "(1) Zashtitata na otechestvoto e dulg i chest za vseki bulgarski grazhdanin...        (2) Izpalnenieto na voinskite zadalzhenia, usloviata i redat za osvobozhdavaneto ot tiah ili za zamianata im s alternativna sluzhba se urezhdat sas zakon."   2.     The Religious Denominations Act, in force since 1949 with some amendments, provides that a "religious denomination", whose statute has been approved by the Council of Ministers, "becomes recognised and obtains legal personality".   The Act further lays down elaborate rules as regards the structure, management and activities of a religious denomination, imposes requirements as regards its clergy and empowers the Directorate of Religious Denominations with certain control functions.   The Bulgarian Orthodox Christian Church and other religious denominations are governed by this Act.   Section 20 of the Act provides that the creation of associations with religious aims is within the ambit of the general laws and administrative regulations.   3.     The Persons and Family Act regulates, inter alia, the registration of non-profit associations.   Sections 134 - 148 contain the requirements as regards the founding of such associations.   These requirements concern the rules for membership, the structure, the election and competence of the governing bodies and the contents of the association's statute.         Section 136 para. 1 provides as follows.   <Translation>              "A non-profit association shall be registered upon a       petition submitted by its governing board. The founding decision       and the statute signed by the founders, as well as proof of       compliance with the requirements of the law as regards the       existence of the association shall be enclosed therewith."   <Bulgarian>   Chlen 136 al. 1        "Vpisvaneto na sdruzhenieto stava po molba na upravitelnia savet, kam koiato triabva da se prilozhat reshenieto za osnovavaneto mu i ustavat na sashtoto, podpisan ot osnovatelite, kakto i dokazatelstva, che sa izpalneni iziskvaniata na osobenite zakoni za sashtestvuvaneto na sdruzhenieto."         Section 133a and the transitional provision, which were introduced on 15 February 1994, read as follows:   <Translation>          Section 133a              "Legal persons, which are non-profit organisations and       whose activities are typical for a religious denomination, or who       perform religious or educational religious activities, shall be       registered under this chapter after having obtained the consent       of the Council of Ministers."          Transitional Provision              "(1)   Registered legal persons which are non-profit       organisations under Section 133a shall be re-registered upon a       petition submitted by their managing boards in a three months'       time limit following this Law's entry into force, provided that       there has been a consent from the Council of Ministers.              (2)    The registration of legal persons which are non-profit       organisations and have failed to comply with the requirements of       the preceding paragraph shall be cancelled and their activities       suspended." <Bulgarian>   Chlen 133a        "Yuridicheskite litza s nestopanska tzel, koito izvarshvat deinost, prisashta na izpovedanie, ili osashtestviavat religiozna ili religioznoprosvetna deinost, se registrirat po reda na tazi glava, sled saglasie na Ministerskia savet."   Prehodna razporedba (D.V. br. 15 ot 1994)        "(1) Vpisanite do sega yuridicheski litza s nestopanska tzel, posocheni v chlen 133a, se preregistrirat po iskane na tehnite rakovodni organi, napraveno v srok ot tri mesetza ot vlizaneto na tozi zakon v sila, pri saglasie na Ministerskia savet.        (2) Zalichava se vpisvaneto i se prekratiava deinostta na yuridicheski litza s nestopanska tzel, koito ne izpalniavat usloviata po predhodnata alineia."   4.     Under Decree No. 125 of the Council of Ministers of 6 December 1990, as amended, the competence of the Directorate of Religious Denominations includes "contacts between the State and the religions", assistance to central and local administrative authorities in solving problems which involve religious matters and assistance to religious organisations as regards education and publications.         Also, the Directorate is competent to exercise the "control provided for in Section 133a of the Persons and Family Act".   According to Section 4 of the Decree, a standing consultative committee at the Directorate is entrusted with "providing opinions on the petitions for registration of new religions and participating in the exercise of control on religious activities".   5.     There are no procedural provisions under Bulgarian law specifically applicable to the examination by the Council of Ministers of a petition for authorisation of a religious association.   The Administrative Procedure Act, which contains a general legal regime concerning the procedure for the delivery of and appeal against administrative decisions, expressly excludes the Council of Ministers' decisions.         In its decision no. 13 of 22 July 1993 (resh. 13 po k.d. 13/93, D.V. br. 65/93), which provides a binding interpretation of Section 125 para. 2 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has stated that the judicial control over the acts of the executive does not infringe their independence as it is limited only to issues of lawfulness.   The courts cannot decide issues on which the administration enjoys full discretion and "cannot control the exercise of the administrative organ's free discretion ..."   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant association complains under Article 9 of the Convention.         It submits that the Council of Ministers' decision, which was in reality taken by the Directorate of Religious Denominations, had in effect officially prohibited the practice and manifestation of the Jehovah's Witnesses' religion in Bulgaria.   One and the same State organ, after having decided arbitrarily and as a sole instance on the "unlawfulness" of the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious beliefs, acted brutally and persistently to suppress them.   This was done by the Directorate inter alia through directly ordered police actions, instructions to local officials, hostile statements in the press and general support for a media "campaign" against the applicant association.         All these acts and practices were unlawful as they were arbitrary.   Furthermore, it was unlawful to interpret a refusal for the registration of an association as amounting to official prohibition to practise a certain religion.   However, this was how the Persons and Family Act and Decision No. 255 were interpreted and applied by the central and local authorities.   The acts of the authorities were unlawful also because they were in breach of Section 37 of the Constitution and Section 3(6) of Decree No. 125 of 6 December 1990 which provided that the State, and in particular the Directorate of Religious Denominations, should contribute to the creation of a climate of tolerance in religious matters.         The specific acts of suppression of the applicant association's activities, such as dispersing meetings held in convention halls and in private apartments, seizure of religious books, and arrests, were also unlawful, as they had no basis in Bulgarian law.         Furthermore, the decisions in the applicant association's case and the suppression of its activities were not necessary in a democratic society, these measures having been drastic and incompatible with the basic values of tolerance and pluralism.   Therefore, they were disproportionate to any conceivable legitimate aim.   Moreover, Bulgaria was the only member of the Council of Europe refusing registration to Jehovah's Witnesses.   2.     The applicant association complains under Article 10 of the Convention of the media "campaign" allegedly launched against it by the authorities, of the alleged impossibility to publish materials in response, and of the seizure and restrictions imposed on the receipt and dissemination of religious books.         Thus a significant amount of the hostile publications in the press consisted of declarations and interviews of state officials or other information cited from official sources.   These statements of the authorities formed the public opinion and led to the refusal of privately owned newspapers to publish materials defending adverse views.         These actions of the authorities, as well as the refusal of the customs authorities to allow the importation of religious materials and their   seizure by the police, had no basis in Bulgarian law and were not necessary in a democratic society.   3.     The applicant association also complains under Article 11 of the Convention.         Thus, pursuant to the amendment of the Persons and Family Act, a religious association has no choice but to apply for authorisation by the Council of Ministers and, if refused, to suspend its activities. In the applicant association's case the Council of Ministers refused authorisation arbitrarily and without providing any reasons, which rendered its act unlawful.   Thereupon the activities of the applicant association were officially prohibited and forcefully suppressed on the basis of an unlawful decision.   Also, the peaceful assemblies organised by the applicant association were dispersed by the police without any legal basis.         Furthermore, the interferences with the applicant association's rights under Article 11 of the Convention did not have a legitimate purpose, but rather aimed directly at suppressing its freedom of religion.   The applicant association did not pose any threat under para. 2 of Article 11 of the Convention.   This was so because, inter alia, the Bulgarian courts had already examined in 1991 the applicant association's activities and had found them to be lawful.   4.     The applicant association complains under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that the Council of Ministers refused some petitions for authorisation and granted others without any reasoning, which rendered the difference in treatment unjustified and discriminatory.   Furthermore, the rule in Section 133a of the Persons and Family Act is discriminatory as it distinguishes between religious and non-religious associations by requiring authorisation only for the former.   5.     The applicant association complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that it was denied access to an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of its civil rights.   The civil rights involved were the right of a non-profit organisation which had met the requirements of the law to acquire legal personality and also the right to association as enshrined in the Bulgarian Constitution. These rights were determined in a final manner by the Council of Ministers, which was neither independent nor a tribunal, and which decided without hearing the applicant association, did not provide any reasoning and acted in breach of basic safeguards of administrative procedure as they exist under Bulgarian law.   The guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention were not afforded by the Supreme Court either, as the Court found itself not competent to examine the substance of the legal dispute.         In its written observations the applicant association also invokes Article 13 of the Convention alleging that it did not have any effective remedy against the breaches of Articles 9, 10 and 11.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 6 September 1995 and registered on 21 September 1995.         On 21 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 3 May 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicant association replied on 21 June 1996.         On 20 January 1997 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.         The hearing took place on 3 July 1997, after an adjournment requested by the respondent Government.   The Government were represented by Mrs. Violina Djidjeva, co-agent, Ministry of Justice. The applicant association was represented by MM. Alain Garay, Philippe Goni and Michel de Guillenchmidt, avocats à la Cour, Paris, France, and by Mr. Lioubomir Kioutchokov, founding member of the applicant association.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant association complains under Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 (Art. 9, 10, 11, 14) of the Convention that it was refused authorisation to re-register, that its activities are suppressed, and of the alleged media campaign against it.   It also complains under Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 (Art. 6-1, 13) of the Convention in respect of the proceedings leading to the refusal of authorisation.         The Commission notes at the outset that part of the events complained of relate to acts of the authorities such as intrusions in private premises, arrests, and seizures of books affecting individual members of the association, who have not submitted applications to the Commission.         In this respect the Government submit that the applicant association cannot complain, under Artic