CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 26 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s71E79153 { width:0.63pt; display:inline-block } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s893D1BA2 { width:9.98pt; display:inline-block } .s70DF58E9 { width:3.3pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s2D8A4020 { width:32.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE32B62BB { width:25.96pt; display:inline-block } .s66441246 { width:19.97pt; display:inline-block } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s38A5FCD7 { width:19.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .s4E78A3E7 { width:1.31pt; display:inline-block } .sB9F77598 { width:17.31pt; display:inline-block } .s2009959B { width:33.98pt; display:inline-block } .sDB2F524C { width:23.98pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFAEFE316 { width:32pt; display:inline-block } .sE4B66E67 { width:21.73pt; display:inline-block } .sC60CB1F9 { width:2.46pt; display:inline-block } .s4F501F83 { width:2pt; display:inline-block } .sBE6FE86E { width:20.65pt; display:inline-block } .sA62DF3A3 { width:8.63pt; display:inline-block }                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                         Application No. 30985/96     Fikri Sali Hasan and Ismail Ahmed Chaush     against     Bulgaria                 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 26 October 1999)               TABLE OF CONTENTS     Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1–18)   1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4)             1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-13)             1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 14-18)             2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 19-60)               4     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 19-54)             4     a.   Background to the case     (paras. 19-22)             4     b.   Events of 1994 and at the beginning of 1995     (paras. 23-28)             4     c.   Removal of the first applicant from his position of Chief Mufti     (paras. 29-34)             6     d.   Appeal to the Supreme Court against Decree R-12     (paras. 35-39)             7   e.   The national conference of 6 March 1995 and the appeal to the Supreme Court against the refusal to register its decisions     (paras. 40-47)             8     f.   The 1997 unification conference and subsequent developments     (paras. 48-54)             9     B.   Relevant domestic law     (paras. 55-60)             10   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 61-124)             12     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 61)             12     B.   Points at issue     (para. 62)             12     C.   As to whether the applicants may claim to be victims of the alleged violations     (paras. 63-70)             12     D.   As regards Article 9 of the Convention     (paras. 71-97)             13       CONCLUSION     (para. 98)             18     E.   As regards Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9     (paras. 99-109)           18       CONCLUSION     (para. 110)             19     F.   As regards Article 11 of the Convention     (paras. 111-114)           19       CONCLUSION     (para. 115)             20     G.   As regards Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention     (paras. 116-119)           20       CONCLUSION     (para. 120)             20     H.   Recapitulation     (paras. 121-124)           21   APPENDIX I:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY     OF THE APPLICATION         22   APPENDIX II:   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION UNDER FORMER ARTICLE 30   PARA. 1 (A) AS TO THE COMPLAINTS OF THE CHIEF MUFTI OFFICE     AND MR SYULEIMAN         33                 I.   INTRODUCTION   1.   The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.   The application   2.   The application was initially introduced by four applicants. Following the Commission's decisions of 4 July and 17 September 1998 to disjoin and strike out the complaints of two of the applicants (see appendix II, the Commission’s report of 17 September 1998 under former   Article 30 para. 1(a) of the Convention) the present report is dealing with the complaints of the remaining two applicants. These are, as first applicant, Mr Fikri Sali Hasan, a Bulgarian citizen, born in 1963 and resident in Sofia; and, as second applicant, Mr Ismail Ahmed Chaush, a Bulgarian citizen born in 1940 and resident in Sofia. Until the events complained of the first applicant was the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims and the second applicant was an Islamic teacher. The applicants were represented before the Commission by Mr Yonko Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia.   3.   The application is directed against Bulgaria. The respondent Government were represented by Ms Violina Djidjeva, co-Agent.   4.   The case concerns the alleged enforced replacement of the leadership of the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria and the ensuing administrative and judicial proceedings. The applicants invoke Articles 6, 9, 11 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 22 January 1996 and registered on 11 April 1996.   6.   On 24 February 1997 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.   On 22 April 1997 the applicants submitted additional information on their own motion. A copy of their submissions was transmitted to the respondent Government.   8.   The time-limit for the Government's written observations expired on 2 May 1997. The Government did not request its extension. By letter of 14 May 1997 the Government were reminded that they had not submitted observations. By letter of 24 June 1997 the Government were informed that the application was being considered for examination during the Commission's session beginning on 8 September 1997 although no observations had been received.   9.   On 8 September 1997 the Commission declared the application admissible.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 25 September 1997 and they were invited to submit observations on the merits. The Government presented observations, requesting the striking of the case off the list of cases, on 31 October and 21 November 1997 and on 18 March, 3 April and 15 May 1998. The applicants replied on 28 October and 19 November 1997 and on 5 January, 20 March and 13 May 1998.   11.   On 4 July 1998 the Commission decided to disjoin the complaints of the Chief Mufti Office and of Mr Syuleiman from the complaints of Mr Fikri Hasan and Mr Ismail Chaush. On 17 September 1998 the Commission decided to strike out of its list of cases, pursuant to former Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the complaints of the Chief Mufti Office and of Mr Syuleiman.   12.   On 25 August 1998 the Government submitted additional observations to which the applicants Mr Hasan and Mr Chaush replied on 6 October 1998. Noting that in the Government’s observations of 25 August 1998 it was claimed that the application was inadmissible for, inter alia, failure to exhaust all domestic remedies and for being submitted out of the six months’ time-limit under former Article 26 of the Convention, the Commission examined this part of the Government’s observations as a request under former Article 29 of the Convention. On 21 October 1999 the Commission found no grounds on which to apply former Article 29 of the Convention.   13.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with former Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.   The present Report   14.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of former Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       MM   S. TRECHSEL, President       E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS       F. MARTINEZ       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV     15.   The text of this Report was adopted on 26 October 1999 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with former Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:     (i)   to establish the facts, and     (ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   17.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility (appendix I) and its report under former Article 30 para. 1(a) of the Convention (appendix II) are annexed hereto.   18.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.   The particular circumstances of the case   a.   Background of the case   19.   Following the beginning of the democratisation process in Bulgaria at the end of 1989, some Muslim believers and activists of the Muslim religion in the country sought to replace the leadership of their religious organisation. They considered that Mr Gendzhev, who was the Chief Mufti at that time, and the members of the Supreme Holy Council (Висш духовен съвет) had collaborated with the communist regime. The old leadership, with Mr Gendzhev as Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, also had supporters. This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Muslim community in Bulgaria.   20.   On 10 February 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations (Дирекция по вероизповеданията), a governmental agency at the Council of Ministers, declared that the election of Mr Gendzhev in 1988 as Chief Mufti of the Muslims in Bulgaria had been null and void and proclaimed his removal from this position. On 21 February 1992 the Directorate registered a three-member Interim Holy Council as a temporary governing body of the Muslims' religious organisation, until the election of a permanent new leadership by a national conference of all Muslims.   21.   Following these events Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, challenged the decision of 10 February 1992 before the Supreme Court. On 28 April 1992 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. The Court found that the decision of the Directorate of Religious Denominations was not subject to judicial appeal. The ensuing petition for review, submitted by Mr Gendzhev against the Supreme Court's decision, was examined by a five-member Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 7 April 1993 the Chamber dismissed the petition. While confirming the rejection of Mr Gendzhev's appeal, the Chamber also discussed the merits of the appeal. It found inter alia that the Directorate's decision to declare Mr Gendzhev's election null and void had been within the competence of the Directorate. Insofar as the impugned decision had also proclaimed "the removal" of Mr Gendzhev from his position of Chief Mufti, this had been beyond the competence of the Directorate. However, it was unnecessary to declare the nullity of this part of the Directorate's decision as in any event it had no legal consequences.   22.   The National Conference of the Muslims, organised by the interim leadership, took place on 19 September 1992. It elected Mr Fikri Sali Hasan (the first applicant) as Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims and also approved a new Statute of the Religious Organisation of the Muslims in Bulgaria (Устав за духовното устройство и управление на мюсюлманите в България). On 1 October 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations registered the Statute and the new leadership pursuant to Sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act.   b.   Events of 1994 and at the beginning of 1995   23.   While the leadership dispute between Mr Gendzhev and Mr Hasan continued, the official position of the Directorate of Religious Denominations, throughout 1993 and at least in the first half of 1994, remained that the first applicant was the legitimate Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims.   24.   On 29 July 1994 the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote a letter to Mr Hasan urging him to organise a national conference of all Muslims to solve certain problems arising from irregularities in the election of local religious leaders. The irregularities in question apparently concerned alleged inconsistencies with the internal statute of the Muslim religious organisation, and not breaches of the law.   25.   On 2 November 1994 the supporters of Mr Gendzhev held a national conference. The conference proclaimed itself the legitimate representative of the Muslim believers, elected an alternative leadership and adopted a statute. After the conference the newly elected rival leaders applied for registration at the Directorate of Religious Denominations, claiming that they were the legitimate leadership of the Muslims in Bulgaria.   26.   On 3 January 1995 the Supreme Holy Council presided over by the first applicant decided to convene a national conference on 28 January 1995.   27.   On 16 January 1995 the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote a letter to the first applicant in his capacity as Chief Mufti urging him to postpone the conference. The letter stated inter alia :   <Translation>       "As the Directorate of Religious Denominations was concerned with [the] irregularities [as regards the election of local muftis] as early as in the middle of 1994, it repeatedly ... urged the rapid resolution of the problems ... Unfortunately no specific measures had been undertaken ... As a result the conflicts in the religious community deepened, and the discontent among the Muslims rose, which led to the holding of an extraordinary national conference on 2 November 1994. This brought to light a new problem, related to the shortcomings of the statute of the Muslim religious community... [The statute] does not clarify the procedure for convening a national conference ... The issues concerning the participants, and the manner in which they are determined ..., are not regulated.       Therefore, for the executive branch of the State it becomes legally impossible to decide whether the national conference is in conformity with the statute [of the Muslim religion] and, accordingly, whether its decisions are valid. These decisions, quite understandably, could be challenged by part of the Muslims in Bulgaria. Any other national conference, except if it were organised by a joint committee [of the rival leaderships], would raise the same problem. Moreover, the decision of 3 January 1995 of the Supreme Holy Council to hold an extraordinary national conference on 28 January 1995 is signed only by six legitimate members of the Spiritual Council... [and] ... cannot be regarded as being in conformity with the statute.       The Directorate of Religious Denominations cannot disregard the findings of the [Chamber of the] Supreme Court in its decision   of 7 [April] 1993. It is mentioned therein that the Directorate had acted beyond its competence when removing Mr Gendzhev from his position of Chief Mufti and that the decision of the Directorate of 10 February 1992 could not have legal consequences.       Extremely worried as regards the current situation and deeply concerned over the well-being of the Muslims in Bulgaria, the Directorate of Religious Denominations supports the opinion of the Chief Mufti, [the first applicant], that it is not advisable to hurry with the holding of an extraordinary conference before overcoming the conflicts in the religious community ...         Firmly convinced that the disputed questions in the religious community should not be decided by administrative means by the executive branch of the State ... the Directorate appeals to you to make proof of good will and reach consensus for the holding of a united conference ..."   28.   On 27 January 1995 the Supreme Holy Council presided over by Mr Hasan announced that it had postponed the national conference to 6 March 1995.   c.   Removal of the first applicant from his position of Chief Mufti   29.   On 22 February 1995 the Deputy Prime Minister of Bulgaria Mr. Shivarov issued Decree No. R-12 which read as follows:   <Translation>       "Based on Decree KV-15 of 6 February 1995 of the Council of Ministers in conjunction with Section 6 of the Religious Denominations Act, I approve the statute of the Muslim religion   in Bulgaria, based in Sofia."   30.   The statute of the Muslim religion in Bulgaria mentioned in the decree was apparently the one adopted at the rival national conference, organised by Mr Gendzhev and held on 2 November 1994. Decree KV-15, referred to in the decision, determined that Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov should be in charge of supervising the activity of the Directorate of Religious Denominations.   31.   On 23 February 1995 the Directorate of Religious Denominations at the Council of Ministers issued a decision which stated that based on Sections 6, 9 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act and Decree R-12 of the Deputy Prime Minister, it had registered a new leadership of the Bulgarian Muslim community. The leadership thus registered included Mr Gendzhev as president of the Supreme Holy Council and, apparently, those elected at the conference of 2 November 1994.   32.   Neither Decree R-12, nor the decision of the Directorate of Religious Denominations gave any reasons, nor any explanation as regards the procedure followed. The decisions were not formally served on Mr Hasan, who learned about them from the press.   33.   On 27 February 1995 the newly registered leadership of the Muslim community accompanied by private security guards entered the headquarters of the Chief Mufti Office in Sofia, forcefully evicted the staff working there, and occupied the building. The applicants submit that the police, who arrived after the surprise action, immediately stepped in to protect the new occupants of the building. Following the action of 27 February 1995 the new leadership took over all documents and assets belonging to the religious organisation of the Bulgarian Muslims in Sofia and, in the months which followed, in various other towns in the country. The Directorate of Religious Denominations allegedly sent letters to the banks where the Muslim religious organisation had its accounts, informing them of the change of leadership. In the following weeks several municipalities, allegedly upon the instructions of the Directorate, registered new regional Muftis. Also, the staff of the Chief Mufti Office and ten Islamic teachers, the second applicant among them, were allegedly dismissed. The applicants have not substantiated any further details as regards the alleged dismissals, such as their dates, grounds or the organs who ordered them.   34.   On 27 February 1995, immediately after the take-over, the first applicant submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Главна прокуратура) a request for assistance, stating that there had been an unlawful mob action and that the persons who occupied the building of the Chief Mufti Office were squatters who had to be evicted. By decisions of 8 and 28 March 1995 the prosecution authorities refused the request. They found inter alia that the new occupants of the building had legal grounds to stay there as they were duly registered by the Directorate of Religious Denominations, and represented the religious leadership of the Muslim community in the country.   d.   Appeal to the Supreme Court against Decree R-12   35.   On 23 March 1995, apparently in reply to a request from the first applicant, the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote to him, in his capacity as a private person, a letter which stated inter alia:   <Translation>       "The Muslim religious community in Bulgaria ... has, in 1888, 1891, 1919, 1949, 1986, 1992 and 1995, repeatedly changed its statute as concerns its organisational structure ..., but never as regards its religious foundation. Decree R-12 of 22 February 1995 ... sanctions an [organisational] change, which the religious community itself wished to undertake ..."   36.   This letter was apparently the first document originating from the competent State bodies which implied clearly that the statute of the Muslim religious community approved by Decree R-12 had replaced the previous statute and that the registered new leadership had replaced the first applicant.   37.   On 18 April 1995 the first applicant, acting on behalf of the Chief Mufti Office led by him, lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal against Decree R-12. He stated that on its face Decree R-12 stipulated nothing more than the registration of a new religious organisation. However, from the decisions and the letter of the Directorate of Religious Denominations which had followed, it had become clear that what was done was the replacement of the statute and the leadership of an existing religious denomination. Furthermore, it transpired that the motivation behind this act had been the understanding that the Muslim religion in Bulgaria could have only one leadership and one statute. The State did not have the right to impose such view on the Muslims, multiple religious organisations of one and the same religion being a normal practice in other countries, as well as in Bulgaria. Therefore the Council of Ministers had acted beyond its powers. The State interference with the internal disputes of the religious community was unlawful. At the oral hearing held by the Court the first applicant also stated that there had been an unlawful interference with the religious liberties of the Muslims, as enshrined in the Constitution.   38.   The first applicant also submitted that the conference of 2 November 1994 had been organised by people outside the Muslim religious organisation presided over by him. Accordingly, they could register their own religious organisation but could not claim to replace the leadership of another. The second applicant asked the Court either to declare Decree R-12 null and void as contrary to the law or to declare that it constituted a registration of a new religious community, the existing Muslim organisation being unaffected.   39.   On 27 July 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court stated that under the Religious Denominations Act the Council of Ministers enjoyed full discretion in its decision as to whether or not to register the statute of a given religion. Therefore, the Court's competence was limited to an examination of whether the impugned act had been issued by the competent administrative organ and whether the procedural requirements had been complied with. In this respect Decree R-12 was lawful. As regards the request for interpretation of Decree R-12, it was not open to the Court, in the framework of the particular proceedings, to state its opinion as to whether it had the effect of creating a new legal person, or introducing changes, and whether after this decision there existed two parallel Muslim religious organisations.   e.   The national conference of 6 March 1995 and the appeal to the Supreme Court against the refusal to register its decisions   40.   The national conference of the Muslims in Bulgaria organised by Mr Hasan took place as planned on 6 March 1995. The minutes of the conference establish that it was attended by 1553 persons, of whom 1188 were official delegates with voting rights. These were representatives of eleven local chapters and of the central leadership. The conference adopted some amendments of the statute of the Muslim community and elected its leadership. The first applicant was re-elected Chief Mufti.   41.   On 5 June 1995 the first applicant, acting as the Chief Mufti, submitted a petition to the Council of Ministers requesting the registration of the new statute and leadership of the Muslims in Bulgaria, as adopted by the conference of 6 March 1995. On 6 October 1995 he repeated the request. However, there was no response from the Council of Ministers.   42.   On an unspecified date the first applicant submitted to the Supreme Court an appeal against the tacit refusal of the Council of Ministers to register the decisions of the March 1995 conference.   43.   On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. The Court noted that in 1992 the Chief Mufti Office as represented by Mr Hasan had been duly registered as a religious denomination under Section 6 of the Religious Denominations Act and had thus obtained legal personality of which it had not been subsequently deprived. Therefore the Council of Ministers was under the obligation, pursuant to Sections 6 and 16 of the Act, to examine a request for registration of a new statute or of changes in the leadership in the existing religious denomination. As a result the Court decided that the tacit refusal of the Council of Ministers was unlawful and ordered the transmission of the file to the Council of Ministers, which had to examine it.   44.   On 19 November 1996 Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov refused to register the 1995 statute and leadership of the Chief Mufti Office as represented by Mr Hasan. He wrote to him a letter stating inter alia that the Council of Ministers had already registered a leadership of the Muslim community in Bulgaria, which was that elected by the November 1994 conference with Mr Gendzhev as President of the Supreme Holy Council. The Deputy Prime Minister concluded that the first applicant's request "cannot be granted as it is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Religious Denominations Act".   45.   On 5 December 1996 the first applicant, acting as the Chief Mufti, appealed to the Supreme Court against the refusal of the Deputy Prime Minister.   46.   On 13 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed that refusal on the ground that it was unlawful and in violation of Section 13 of the Constitution. The refusal constituted "an unlawful administrative intervention into the internal organisation of [a] religious community". The Court ordered again the transmission of the file to the Council of Ministers for registration.   47.   Despite these Supreme Court judgments the Council of Ministers did not grant registration to the religious leadership headed by Mr Hasan.     f.   The 1997 unification conference and subsequent developments   48.   In February 1997 there was a change of Government in Bulgaria.   49.   On 24 March 1997 the first applicant again requested the Council of Ministers to register the 1995 statute and leadership. There followed informal contacts between the Muslim leadership of Mr Hasan and representatives of the Government. The applicants were allegedly told that the Government would only agree to register a new leadership of the Muslims if it was elected at a unification conference.   50.   The Directorate of Religious Denominations urged the two rival leaderships, of Mr Hasan and of Mr Gendzhev, to negotiate a solution. On 12 September 1997 the leadership headed by Mr Hasan decided to accept the holding of a unification conference under certain conditions. A five-member contact group was appointed to hold negotiations. On 30 September 1997 representatives of the two rival leaderships signed an agreement to convene a national conference of all Muslim believers on 23 October 1997. The agreement, which was also signed by Deputy Prime Minister Metodiev and the Director of Religious Denominations, provided inter alia that the parties should not obstruct the unification process failing which the Directorate would take appropriate administrative measures. Also, the leadership of Mr Gendzhev undertook not to dispose of any Muslim property or assets pending the conference.   51.   The Directorate of Religious Denominations took an active part in organising the national conference. The mayors in many localities distributed to the local chapters forms bearing the seal of the Directorate. These forms were filled out at the meetings of the local chapters which elected delegates to the national conference and were certified by the mayors’ signatures.   52.   On 23 October 1997 1,384 delegates attended the conference. Only delegates whose election had been certified by the mayors were allowed to participate. The conference adopted a new statute of the Muslim denomination in Bulgaria and elected a new leadership comprising members of the leadership of Mr Hasan and others. Mr Hasan apparently attended the conference and approved of the new leadership. Six leaders of the wing led by him were elected to the new Supreme Holy Council. Mr Hasan was not among them. On 28 October 1997 the Government registered the newly elected leadership.   53.   Although the religious community grouped around Mr Gendzhev was involved in the unification process, Mr Gendzhev himself and some of his supporters did not sign the agreement of 30 September 1997 and did not attend the conference, considering that it was manipulated by the State. The conference voted a resolution authorising the new leadership to conduct an audit and seek the prosecution of Mr Gendzhev for alleged unlawful transactions.   54.   Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained the Chief Mufti, appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Върховен административен съд) against the decision of the Government to register the new leadership. By judgment of 16 July 1998 the court rejected the appeal as being inadmissible. The court found that the Chief Mufti Office of Mr Gendzhev had no locus standi to lodge an appeal as it had never been validly registered. Decree R-12 of 22 February 1995 (see paras. 29 and 30 above) was signed by Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov, who had not been duly authorised by the Council of Ministers. Decree KV-15 did not contain an express authorisation for the Deputy Prime Minister to approve statutes of religious denominations. As a result the Chief Mufti Office of Mr Gendzhev had never legally existed and all its acts between 1995 and 1997 were null and void.   B.   Relevant domestic law   55.   The Constitution of 1991.   <Translation>     Section 13       "(1) The religions 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 to 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 in 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."   56.   Judgment 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 State shall not interfere with the internal organisation of the religious communities and institutions, which is to be regulated by their own statutes and rules. The State may interfere with the activity of a religious community or institution only in cases falling under Section 13 para. 4 and Section 37 para. 2 of the Constitution (see the preceding paragraph). An assessment whether there is such a case may be undertaken also at the moment of registration of a religious community or institution.   57.   The relevant provisions of the Religious Denominations Act, as in force at the time of the events at issue, read as follows.   <Translation>     Section 6       "(1) A religious denomination shall be considered recognised and shall become a legal person upon the approval of its statute by the Council of Ministers, or by a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose.       (2) The Council of Ministers, or a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose, shall revoke the recognition, by a reasoned decision, if the activities of the religious denomination breach the law, public order or morals."       Section 9       "(1) Every religious denomination shall have a leadership accountable to the State.       (2) The statute of the religious denomination shall establish its governing and representative bodies and the procedure for their election and appointment... "       Section 16       "(1) The national governing bodies of the religious denominations shall register with the Directorate of Religious Denominations at the Council of Ministers, and the local governing bodies with the local municipalities, and shall submit a list of the names of all members of these governing bodies."     The Act, which has been in force since 1949 with some amendments, also lays down other rules as regards the activities of a religious denomination, imposes requirements as regards its clergy and empowers the Directorate of Religious Denominations with certain control functions. In its judgment no. 5 of 11 June 1992 the Constitutional Court, while agreeing that certain provisions of the Religious Denominations Act were clearly unconstitutional, found that it was not its task to repeal legal provisions adopted prior to the entry into force of the 1991 Constitution, the ordinary courts being competent to declare them inapplicable.   58.   The applicants contend that as a consequence of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, and since there is no public register for recognised religious denominations, in practice a religious community can establish its existence as a legal entity only by producing a copy of a letter or a decision to that effect, issued by the Directorate of Religious Denominations. The same applies to the leader of a religious denomination when he needs to prove his powers.   59.   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.   60.   There are no procedural provisions under Bulgarian law specifically applicable to the examination by the Council of Ministers, or by a Deputy Prime Minister, of a petition for authorisation of a religious denomination. The Administrative Procedure Act (Закон за административното производство), which contains a general legal regime on the procedure for the delivery of and appeal against administrative decisions, provides in its Section 3 that it is not applicable as regards the Council of Ministers' decisions.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaints declared admissible   61.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaints:   - that there has been an unjustified interference with their religious liberties;   - that they did not have an effective remedy in this respect;   - that there has been an unjustified interference with their freedom of association and that they did not have an effective remedy in this respect; and   - that they did not have a hearing on the merits before a court in the determination of certain civil rights, that they have been deprived of certain possessions and that they did not have an effective remedy against those alleged violations of the Convention.   B.   Points at issue   62.   Accordingly, the points at issue in the present case are:   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 11of the Convention;   -   whether there have been violations of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   C.   As to whether the applicants may claim to be victims of the alleged violations   63.   A preliminary issue arises as to whether the applicants may claim to be victims of the alleged violations of the Convention. The Government submit that the applicants cannot claim to be victims, in particular after the events of October 1997. They submit that Mr Hasan has signed the application form to the Commission only in his capacity as a representative of the Chief Mufti Office, which later withdrew its complaints. Furthermore, the negotiations between the rival leaderships of the Muslim community in Bulgaria, held with the assistance and active participation of the Directorate of Religious Denominations, and the election and registration of a new leadership following the unification conference of October 1997 (see paras. 50 - 52 above) constituted a friendly settlement or, alternatively, resolved the dispute and rendered the application devoid of its purpose.   64.   The applicants reply that the application form was signed by Mr Hasan both on his behalf and on behalf of the Chief Mufti Office. It has been clearly stated therein that Mr Hasan’s complaints concern not only the rights of the Chief Mufti Office but his personal Convention rights as well. It would be meaningless to require Mr Hasan to sign the application form twice. Furthermore, in a letter to the Commission dated 14 October 1996 that position was confirmed.   65.   The applicants also submit that their application to the Commission has not been the subject of discussion at any point during the negotiations for the unification conference. The application concerns violations dating from 1995 and thereafter which have not been remedied. Moreover, the situation where the law allows for arbitrariness and provides no guarantees against State interference has not been changed. The applicants therefore have a genuine interest to obtain a finding of a violation of the Convention.   66.   The Commission notes at the outset that neither Mr Hasan, nor Mr Chaush have entered into any agreement with the Government in respect of the present case. The submissions of the parties indicate that they are in dispute. There has been therefore no friendly settlement as far as Mr Hasan and Mr Chaush are concerned (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (Aticle 50) judgment of 1 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions (Reports) 1998-II, pp. 716-717, paras. 10-14).   67.   The Commission further recalls that the fact that an agreement, concluded between private parties on their own, may have mitigated the disadvantage suffered by the applicant does not in principle deprive him of his status as "victim". An applicant would, in principle, be entitled to claim that he remains a victim of a violation unless there has been redress on account, expressly or impliedly, of the alleged breach of the Convention (cf., Eur. Court HR, Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 17, para. 33; Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 16, paras. 31 - 34).   68.   In the present case none of the agreements or acts related to the October 1997 conference or the registration of a new leadership elected at that conference could be reasonably interpreted as constituting redress and recognition, albeit implied, in respect of the applicants’ allegations. The applicants’ grievances concern events which occurred between 1995 and 1997. It is true that the Supreme Court found in some of its decisions that certain acts of the Government during that period of time had been unlawful. However, the gist of the applicants’ complaints is precisely that the executive allegedly failed to comply with those judicial decisions and that the national legal system allegedly allowed such an illegal situation to persist.   69.   Furthermore, Mr Hasan, who practically lost his position of chief religious leader, was most affected by the allegedly arbitrary State interference with the religious organisation of the Muslim believers. It cannot be maintained that he obtained redress by virtue of the fact that the Government decided to register a new leadership elected at a unification conference, while still refusing to recognise Mr Hasan as the Chief Mufti. As to the Government’s argument that Mr Hasan did not apply to the Commission in his individual capacity, the Commission notes that on the second page of his application form Mr Hasan is referred to as an applicant and that a number of complaints set out therein concern him both as an individual and as the Chief Mufti.   70.   The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicants may claim to be victims of the alleged violations of the Convention.   D.   As regards Article 9 of the Convention   71.   Article 9 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:     "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of ... religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.     2.   Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."   72.   The applicants allege that there has been an interference with their religious liberties, the right of the believers to govern their own affairs and to choose their leadership being an important part thereof.   73.   In the applicants’ view to deny that Article 9 guarantees to every believer the undisturbed life of the religious community is to strip religious life of many of its important components. The right to manifest religious beliefs individually or in community with others means that the community should be allowed to organise itself according to its own rules. Such rules of coexistence and management should be protected against unnecessary Governmental interference. The registration of a leadership of a religious community in Bulgaria has significant practical consequences for every believer. Whether one or another group of people has control over the policy of the religious community, the management of schools and property, or the organisation of religious rituals, is of major significance for the individual.   74.   The applicants contend that the measures undertaken by the State had the effect of replacing the statute and the leadership of the Muslim religion in Bulgaria. This was so because, following the registration in February 1995, by the Directorate of Religious Denominations, of Mr Gendzhev’s leadership, no court, government body or indeed no person would recognise Mr Hasan as a legitimate representative of the Muslim believers. Religious communities in Bulgaria receive State subsidies. These subsidies ceased for the community led by Mr Hasan after March 1995. The State owned National Television provides opportunity to leaders of religious denominations to present addresses on the occasion of religious holidays. In 1996 and 1997 these addresses were given by the leadership of Mr Gendzhev put in place by virtue of the 1995 replacement of the Muslim religious leadership.   75.   The applicants further maintain that the State interference with the internal affairs of the religious community was neither prescribed by law, nor necessary in a democratic society. The replacement of the leadership was achieved through arbitrary decrees which gave no reasons and were issued without even informing the parties concerned. There were no clear legal grounds nor any reasonable legal criteria on the basis of which the State could favour one wing of the divided Muslim community to the detriment of another. The national conference of November 1994, which elected the leadership of Mr Gendzhev, was not organised by the Chief Mufti Office and its delegates were not elected by the local chapters as provided for under the by-laws of the Muslim religious community. There is no proper legal procedure clarifying what requirements are to be met for the registration of a religious community. There is no public register of religious communities where an independent verification of the by-laws, leadership and representation of a community could be made. This, combined with the unpredictable practice of the Directorate of Religious Denominations and with the "full discretion" doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court, amounts to complete arbitrariness. The appli