CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 décembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C38CC87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s93AE2BFC { width:16.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5CD64447 { width:5.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCCCA961D { width:43.72pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4225BBFB { width:20.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .sAC18BB19 { width:32.7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s812A4BBF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .sDBAA9E6D { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s194CE510 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s31B48246 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s18215599 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s39CB938C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:95% } .s25FBB717 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:95% } .sD2ED3081 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; line-height:95% } .sEECE7AF0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; line-height:95% } .sD83C29BF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:95% } .sD3B83040 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:95%; font-size:10pt } .s29EE784C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:95%; font-size:10pt } .s6329D2C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:95%; font-size:10pt } .sFF6C0A29 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; line-height:95% } .s38A9F4B5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:95% } .s249FBD1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:95%; font-size:10pt } .s91C24905 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:95%; font-size:10pt } .sA379A807 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:95%; font-size:10pt } .sA35E674C { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:90%; font-size:10pt } .s3B33130D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:90%; font-size:10pt } .s47E949CA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:90%; font-size:10pt } .s29DB40A5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:85%; font-size:10pt } .s8A9D5124 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:85%; font-size:10pt } .s44D8BA1C { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:85%; font-size:10pt } .s607A5B5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:85%; font-size:10pt } .sF7710A29 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; line-height:85% } .sE03729BF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:85% } .s143776DF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:85%; font-size:10pt } .s3852357F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:85% } .s5361BC6C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:85%; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s31CA8E2D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s706B362D { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEE35628D { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDB660C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sA36C4D91 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s82EA1BC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s49E4BEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sC8C244B6 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:72.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s1055E8C5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:72.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sB5C2B09B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sA88AA7F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3FAD7F67 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s498509A2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s385C1FAF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D08A2D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7F0CA1BB { width:1.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s3DD9F85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBC8A268D { width:220.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sE70BCCD1 { width:240.91pt; display:inline-block }     FORMER FIRST SECTION     CASE OF METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA     (Application no. 45701/99)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     13 December 2001       FINAL     27/03/2002         In the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v.   Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mrs   E. Palm , President ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   L. F errari Bravo ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mr   T. P anţîru , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 2 October and 5 December 2001, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 45701/99) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia ( Mitropolia Basarabiei şi Exarhatul Plaiurilor ) and twelve Moldovan nationals, Mr   Petru Păduraru, Mr Petru Buburuz, Mr Vasile Petrache, 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 (“the applicants”), on 3 June 1998. The applicant Vasile Petrache died in autumn 1999. 2.     The applicants alleged in particular that the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia infringed their freedom of religion and association and that the applicant Church was the victim of discrimination on the ground of religion. 3.     The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 4.     The application was assigned to the First Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 5.     By a decision of 7 June 2001, the Chamber declared the application admissible [ Note by the Registry. The Court’s decision is obtainable from the Registry]. It further decided to strike out of the Court’s list that part of the application which concerned the applicant Vasile Petrache, who had died. 6.     The applicants and the Moldovan Government (“the Government”) each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 7.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 2 October 2001 (Rule 59 § 2).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   I. Morei, Minister of Justice, Mr   V. Pârlog , Head of the Department of the Government Agent     and International Relations, Ministry of Justice,   Agent , Mr   G. Armaşu, Director, Religious Affairs Department,   Adviser ; (b)     for the applicants Mr   J.W. Montgomery , Mr   A. Dos Santos , Barristers practising in London,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Montgomery and Mr Morei.   8.     On 25 September 2001, in accordance with Rule 61 § 3, the President of the Chamber had authorised the Metropolitan Church of Moldova to submit written observations on certain aspects of the case. These observations had been received on 10 September 2001. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The first applicant, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, is an autonomous Orthodox Church having canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The other applicants are Moldovan nationals who are members of the eparchic council of the first applicant. They are: Mr   Petru Păduraru, Archbishop of Chişinău, Metropolitan of Bessarabia and living in Chişinău; Mr Petru Buburuz, prosyncellus, living in Chişinău; Mr   Ioan Eşanu, protosyncellus, living in Călăraşi; Mr Victor Rusu, protopresbyter, living in Lipnic, Ocniţa; Mr Anatol Goncear, a priest living in Zubreşti, Străşeni; Mr Valeriu Cernei, a priest living in Sloveanca, Sângerei; Mr Gheorghe Ioniţă, a priest living in Crasnoarmeisc, Hânceşti; Mr Valeriu Matciac, a priest living in Chişinău; Mr Vlad Cubreacov, member of the Moldovan parliament and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and living in Chişinău, Mr Anatol Telembici, living in Chişinău; and Mr Alexandru Magola, Chancellor of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, living in Chişinău. A.     Creation of the applicant Church and proceedings to secure its official recognition 1.     Creation of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia 10.     On 14 September 1992 the applicant natural persons joined together to form the applicant Church – the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia – a local, autonomous Orthodox Church. According to its articles of association, it took the place, from the canon-law point of view, of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia which had existed until 1944. In December 1992 it was attached to the patriarchate of Bucharest. 11.     The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia adopted articles of association which determined, among other matters, the composition and administration of its organs, the training, recruitment and disciplinary supervision of its clergy, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and rules concerning its assets. In the preamble to the articles of association the principles governing the organisation and operation of the applicant Church are defined as follows: “The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia is a local, autonomous Orthodox Church attached to the patriarchate of Bucharest. The traditional ecclesiastical denomination ‘Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia’ is of a historically conventional nature and has no link with current or previous political situations. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia has no political activities and will have none in future. It shall carry on its work in the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall have the status of an exarchate of the country. According to canon law, communities of the Moldovan diaspora may also become members. No charge shall be made for the accession of individual members and communities living abroad. In the context of its activity in the Republic of Moldova, it shall respect the laws of the State and international human rights law. Communities abroad which have adhered for the purposes of canon law to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall establish relations with the authorities of the States concerned, complying with their legislation and the relevant provisions of international law. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall cooperate with the authorities of the State in the sphere of culture, education and social assistance. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia does not make any claim of an economic or any other kind against other Churches or religious organisations. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia maintains ecumenical relations   with other Churches and religious movements and considers that fraternal dialogue is the only proper form of relationship between Churches. Priests of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia working in Moldovan territory shall be Moldovan citizens. When nationals of foreign States are invited to come to Moldova to carry on a religious activity or citizens of the Republic of Moldova are sent abroad for the same purpose, the legislation in force must be complied with. Members of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall be citizens of the Republic of Moldova who have joined together on a voluntary basis to practise their religion in common, in accordance with their own convictions, and on the basis of the precepts of the Gospel, the Apostolic Canons, Orthodox canon law and Holy Tradition. Religious services held in all the communities of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall include special prayers for the authorities and institutions of the State, couched in the following terms: ‘We pray, as always, for our country, the Republic of Moldova, for its leaders and for its army. May God protect them and grant them peaceful and honest lives, spent in obedience to the canons of the Church.’ ” 12.     To date, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia has established 117 communities in Moldovan territory, three communities in Ukraine, one in Lithuania, one in Latvia, two in the Russian Federation and one in Estonia. The communities in Latvia and Lithuania have been recognised by the State authorities and have legal personality. Nearly one million Moldovan nationals are affiliated to the applicant Church, which has more than 160 clergy. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia is recognised by all the Orthodox patriarchates with the exception of the patriarchate of Moscow. 2.     Administrative and judicial proceedings to secure official recognition of the applicant Church 13.     Pursuant to the Religious Denominations Act (Law no. 979-XII of 24   March 1992), which requires religious denominations active in Moldovan territory to be recognised by means of a government decision, the applicant Church applied for recognition on 8 October 1992. It received no reply. 14.     It made further applications on 25 January and 8 February 1995. On a date which has not been specified the Religious Affairs Department refused these applications. 15.     On 8 August 1995 the applicant Petru Păduraru, relying on Article   235 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which governs judicial review of administrative acts contrary to recognised rights), brought civil proceedings against the government in the Court of First Instance of the Buiucani district of Chişinău. He asked for the decisions refusing to recognise the applicant Church to be set aside. The court ruled in his favour and, on 12 September 1995, ordered recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. 16.     On 15 September 1995 the Buiucani public prosecutor appealed against the Buiucani Court of First Instance’s decision of 12 September 1995. 17.     On 18 October 1995 the Supreme Court of Justice set aside the decision of 12 September 1995 on the ground that the courts did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant Church’s application for recognition. 18.     On 13 March 1996 the applicant Church filed a fresh application for recognition with the government. On 24 May 1996, having received no reply, the applicants brought civil proceedings against the government in the Chişinău Court of First Instance, seeking recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. On 19 July 1996 that court gave judgment against the applicants. 19.     On 20 August 1996 the applicants again filed an application for recognition, which went unanswered. 20.     The applicants appealed to the Chişinău Municipal Court ( Tribunal municipiului ) against the judgment of 19 July 1996. In a judgment of 21 May 1997, against which no appeal lay, the Municipal Court quashed the impugned judgment and allowed the applicants’ claim. 21.     However, following a reform of the Moldovan judicial system, the file was sent to the Moldovan Court of Appeal for trial de novo . 22.     On 4 March 1997 the applicants again applied to the government for recognition. On 4 June 1997, not having received any reply, they referred the matter to the Court of Appeal, seeking recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, relying on their freedom of conscience and freedom of association for the purpose of practising their religion. The resulting action was joined to the case already pending before the Court of Appeal. 23.     In the Court of Appeal the government alleged that the case concerned an ecclesiastical conflict within the Orthodox Church in Moldova (the Metropolitan Church of Moldova), which could be resolved only by the Romanian and Russian Orthodox Churches, and that any recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia would provoke conflicts in the Orthodox community. 24.     The Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ claim in a decision of 19 August 1997. It pointed out, firstly, that Article 31 §§ 1 and 2 of the Moldovan Constitution guaranteed freedom of conscience and that that freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance and respect for others. In addition, the various denominations were free to organise themselves according to their articles of association, subject to compliance with the laws of the Republic. Secondly, it noted that from 8 October 1992 the applicant Church, acting pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Religious Denominations Act, had filed with the government a number of applications for recognition, but that no reply had been forthcoming. By a letter of 19 July 1995 the Prime Minister had informed the applicants that the government could not consider the application of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia without interfering with the activity of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. The Court of Appeal further noted that while the applicant Church’s application for recognition had been ignored, the Metropolitan Church of Moldova had been recognised by the government on 7 February 1993, as an eparchy dependent on the patriarchate of Moscow. The Court of Appeal dismissed the government’s argument that recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova made it possible to satisfy the wishes of all Orthodox believers. It pointed out that the term denomination was not to be reserved for catholicism or orthodoxy, but should embrace all faiths and various manifestations of religious feelings by their adherents, in the form of prayers, ritual, religious services or divine worship. It noted that from the point of view of canon law the Metropolitan Church of Moldova was part of the Russian Orthodox Church and therefore dependent on the patriarchate of Moscow, whereas the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was attached to the Romanian Orthodox Church and therefore dependent on the patriarchate of Bucharest. The Court of Appeal held that the government’s refusal to recognise the applicant Church was contrary to the freedom of religion, as guaranteed not only by the Religious Denominations Act but also by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article   18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to all of which Moldova was party. Noting that the representative of the government had taken the view that the applicant Church’s articles of association complied with domestic legislation, the Court of Appeal ordered the government to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and to ratify its articles of association. 25.     The government appealed against the above decision on the ground that the courts did not have jurisdiction to try such a case. 26.     In a judgment of 9 December 1997 the Supreme Court of Justice set aside the decision of 19 August 1997 and dismissed the applicants’ action on the grounds that it was out of time and manifestly ill-founded. It noted that, according to Article 238 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one month was allowed for an appeal against a government decision alleged to infringe a recognised right. The time allowed began to run either on the date of the decision announcing the government’s refusal or, if the they did not reply, one month after the lodging of the application. The Supreme Court of Justice noted that the applicants had submitted their application to the government on 4 March 1997 and lodged their appeal on 4 June 1997; it accordingly ruled their action out of time. It went on to say that, in any event, the government’s refusal of the applicants’ application had not infringed their freedom of religion as guaranteed by international treaties, and in particular by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because they were Orthodox Christians and could manifest their beliefs within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, which the government had recognised by a decision of 7   February 1993. The Supreme Court of Justice considered that the case was simply an administrative dispute within a single Church, which could be settled only by the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, since any interference by the State in the matter might aggravate the situation. It held that the State’s refusal to intervene in this conflict was compatible with Article 9 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Lastly, it noted that the applicants could manifest their beliefs freely, that they had access to Churches and that they had not adduced evidence of any obstacle whatsoever to the practice of their religion. 27.     On 15 March 1999 the applicants again applied to the government for recognition. 28.     By a letter dated 20 July 1999 the Prime Minister refused on the ground that the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was not a religious denomination in the legal sense but a schismatic group within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. He informed the applicants that the government would not allow their application until a religious solution to the conflict had been found, following the negotiations in progress between the patriarchates of Russia and Romania. 29.     On 10 January 2000 the applicants lodged a further application for recognition with the government. The Court has not been informed of the outcome of that application. 3.     Recognition of other denominations 30.     Since the adoption of the Religious Denominations Act, the government has recognised a number of denominations, some of which are listed below. On 7 February 1993 the government ratified the articles of association of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, attached to the patriarchate of Moscow. On 28 August 1995 it recognised the Orthodox Eparchy of the Old Christian Liturgy of Chişinău, attached to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Old Liturgy, whose head office was in Moscow. On 22 July 1993 the government recognised the “Seventh-Day Adventist Church”. On 19 July 1994 it decided to recognise the “Seventh-Day Adventist Church – Reform Movement”. On 9 June 1994 the government ratified the articles of association of the “Federation of Jewish (Religious) Communities” and on 1 September 1997 those of the “Union of Communities of Messianic Jews”.       4.     Reaction of various national authorities 31.     Since it was first set up, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia has regularly applied to the Moldovan authorities to explain the reasons for its creation and to seek their support in obtaining official recognition. 32.     The government asked several ministries for their opinion about whether to recognise the applicant Church. On 16 October 1992 the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs informed the government that it was favourable to the recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. On 14 November 1992 the Ministry of Financial Affairs informed the government that it could see no objection to the recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. On 8 February 1993 the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection declared that it was favourable to the recognition of the applicant Church. In a letter of 8 February 1993 the Ministry of Education emphasised the need for the rapid recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia in order to avoid any discrimination against its adherents, while pointing out that its articles of association could be improved upon. On 15 February 1993 the Secretariat of State for Privatisation stated that it was favourable to the recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, while proposing certain amendments to its articles of association. 33.     On 11 March 1993, in reply to a letter from the Bishop of Bălţi, writing on behalf of the Metropolitan of Bessarabia, the Moldovan parliament’s Cultural and Religious Affairs Committee noted that the delay in registering the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was aggravating the social and political situation in Moldova, even though its actions and articles of association complied with Moldovan legislation. The committee therefore asked the government to recognise the applicant Church. 34.     A memorandum from the Religious Affairs Department, dated 21   November 1994, summarised the situation as follows: “For nearly two years an ecclesiastical group known under the name of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia has been operating illegally in Moldovan territory. No positive result has been obtained in spite of our sustained efforts to put a stop to its activity (discussions between members of the so-called Church, priests, Mr G.E., Mr   I.E. ..., representatives of the State and believers from the localities in which its adherents are active, Mr G.G., Minister of State, and Mr N.A., Deputy Speaker; all the organs of local and national administrative bodies have been informed of the illegal nature of the group, etc.). In addition, although priests and adherents of the Church have been forbidden to take part in divine service, for failure to comply with canon law, they have nevertheless continued their illegal activities in the churches and have also been invited to officiate on the occasion of various public activities organised, for example, by the Ministries of Defence and Health. The management of the Bank of Moldova and the National Customs Service have not acted on our request for liquidation of the group’s bank accounts and strict supervision of its priests during their numerous crossings of the border. The activity of the so-called Church is not limited to attracting new adherents and propagating the ideas of the Romanian Church. It also has all the means necessary for the work of a Church, it appoints priests, including nationals of other States ..., trains clergy, builds churches and many, many other things. It should also be mentioned that the group’s activity (more political than religious) is sustained by forces both from within the country (by certain mayors and their villages, by opposition representatives, and even by some MPs) and from outside (by decision no. 612 of 12 November 1993 the Romanian government granted it 399,400,000 lei to finance its activity ... The activity of this group is causing religious and socio-political tension in Moldova and will have unforeseeable repercussions ... The Religious Affairs Department notes: (a)     Within Moldovan territory there is no territorial administrative unit with the name of Bessarabia which might justify setting up a religious group named ‘Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia’. The creation of such a group and recognition of its articles of association would constitute a wrongful anti-State act – a negation of the sovereign and independent State which the Republic of Moldova constitutes. (b)     The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was set up to take the place of the former Eparchy of Bessarabia, founded in 1925 and recognised by Decree no. 1942 promulgated on 4 May 1925 by the King of Romania. Legal recognition of the validity of those acts would imply recognition of their present-day effects within Moldovan territory. (c)     All Orthodox parishes in Moldovan territory have been registered as constituent parts of the of the Orthodox Church of Moldova (the Metropolitan Church of Moldova), whose articles of association were ratified by the government in its decision no. 719 of 17 November 1993. In conclusion: 1.     If nothing is done to put a stop to the activity of the so-called Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, the result will be destabilisation not just of the Orthodox Church but of the whole of Moldovan society. 2.     Recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (Old Style) and ratification of its articles of association by the government would automatically entail the disappearance of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.” 35.     On 20 February 1996, following a question in Parliament asked by the applicant Vlad Cubreacov, a Moldovan MP, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Speaker explaining the reasons for the government’s refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. He said that the applicant Church was not a denomination distinct from the Orthodox Church but a schismatic group within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova and that any interference by the State to resolve the conflict would be contrary to the Moldovan Constitution. He pointed out that the political party to which Mr   Cubreacov belonged had publicly expressed disapproval of the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision of 9 December 1997, that Mr Cubreacov himself had criticised the government for their refusal to recognise “this phantom metropolitan Church” and that he continued to support it by exerting pressure in any way he could, through statements to the media and approaches to the national authorities and international organisations. The letter ended with the assertion that the “feverish debates” about the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia were purely political. 36.     On 29 June 1998 the Religious Affairs Department sent the Deputy Prime Minister its opinion on the question of recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. It pointed out in particular that not since 1940 had there been an administrative unit in Moldova with the name “Bessarabia” and that the Orthodox Church had been recognised on 17 November 1993 under the name of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, of which the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was a “schismatic element”. It accordingly considered that recognition of the applicant Church would represent interference by the State in the affairs of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, and that this would aggravate the “unhealthy” situation in which the latter Church was placed. It considered that the articles of association of the applicant Church could not be ratified since they merely “reproduce[d] those of the Orthodox Church of another country”. 37.     On 22 June 1998 the Ministry of Justice informed the government that it did not consider the articles of association of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia to be contrary to Moldovan legislation. 38.     By letters of 25 June and 6 July 1998 the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the Ministry of Financial Affairs again informed the government that they could see no objection to recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. 39.     On 7 July 1998 the Ministry of Education informed the government that it supported recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. 40.     On 15 September 1998 the Cultural and Religious Affairs Committee of the Moldovan parliament sent the government, for information, a copy of a report by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, which showed that on 1 January 1998 there were at least four different Orthodox Churches in Russia, some of which had their head offices abroad. The Committee expressed the hope that the above-mentioned report would assist the government to resolve certain similar problems, particularly the problem concerning the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia’s application for recognition. 41.     In a letter sent on 10 January 2000 to the applicant Vlad Cubreacov, the Deputy Attorney-General expressed the view that the government’s refusal to reply to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia’s application for recognition was contrary to the freedom of religion and to Articles 6, 11 and 13 of the Convention. 42.     In a decision of 26 September 2001 the government approved the amended version of Article 1 of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova’s articles of association, worded as follows: “The Orthodox Church of Moldova is an independent Church and is the successor in law to ... the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. While complying with the canons and precepts of the Holy Apostles, Fathers of the Church and the Ecumenical Synods, and the decisions of the Universal Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church of Moldova operates within the territory of the State of the Republic of Moldova in accordance with the provisions of the legislation in force.” 43.     In a letter received by the Court on 21 September 2001 the President of the Republic of Moldova expressed his concern about the possibility that the applicant Church might be recognised. He said that the issue could be resolved only by negotiation between the Russian and Romanian patriarchates, since it would be in breach of Moldovan legislation if the State authorities were to intervene in the conflict. Moreover, if the authorities were to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, this would have unforeseeable consequences for Moldovan society. 5.     International reactions 44.     In its Opinion no. 188 (1995) to the Committee of Ministers on Moldova’s application for membership of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted the Republic of Moldova’s willingness to fulfil the commitments it had entered into when it lodged its application for membership on 20 April 1993. These commitments, which had been reaffirmed before the adoption of the above-mentioned opinion, included an undertaking to “confirm complete freedom of worship for all citizens without discrimination” and to “ensure a peaceful solution to the dispute between the Moldovan Orthodox Church and the Bessarabian Orthodox Church”. 45.     In its annual report for 1997 the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights criticised the Moldovan government’s refusal to recognise the Metropoltitan Church of Bessarabia. The report stated that as a result of this refusal many churches had been transferred to the ownership of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. It drew attention to allegations that members of the applicant Church’s clergy had been subjected to physical violence without receiving the slightest protection from the authorities. 46.     In its 1998 report the Federation criticised the Religious Denominations Act, and in particular section 4 thereof, which denied any protection of the freedom of religion to the adherents of religions not recognised by a government decision. It pointed out that this section was a discriminatory instrument which enabled the government to make it difficult for the adherents of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia to bring legal proceedings with a view to reclaiming church buildings which belonged to them. In addition, the report mentioned acts of violence and vandalism to which the applicant Church and its members were subjected. B.     Alleged incidents affecting the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and its members 47.     The applicants reported a number of incidents during which members of the clergy or adherents of the applicant Church had allegedly been intimidated or prevented from manifesting their beliefs. 48.     The Government did not dispute that these incidents had taken place. 1.     Incidents in Gârbova (Ocniţa) 49.     In 1994 the assembly of Christians of the village of Gârbova (Ocniţa) decided to join the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The Metropolitan of Bessarabia therefore appointed T.B. as the parish priest. 50.     On 7 January 1994, when T.B. went to the church to celebrate the Christmas mass, the mayor of Gârbova, T.G., forbade him to enter. When the villagers came out of the church to protest, the mayor locked the door and, without further explanation, ordered T.B. to leave the village within twenty-four hours. 51.     The mayor summoned a new assembly of the Christians of the village on 9 January 1994. On that date he informed the villagers that T.B. had been stripped of his post as the village priest because he belonged to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. He introduced a new parish priest who belonged to the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. The assembly rejected the mayor’s proposal. 52.     The mayor called a new assembly of the Christians of the village on 11 January 1994. On that date he introduced to the villagers a third priest, also from the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. He was likewise rejected by the assembly, which expressed its preference for T.B. 53.     In those circumstances, S.M., the chairman of the parish council, was summoned by the mayor and the manager of the local collective farm, who urged him to persuade the villagers to accept T.B.’s removal from office. The chairman of the parish council refused. 54.     On 13 January 1994 S.M. was arrested on his way to church. He was pinned down by five policemen, then thrown into a police van and taken first to the town hall, where he was savagely beaten. He was then taken into police custody at Ocniţa police station, where he was upbraided for showing favour to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. He was released after being detained for three days. 55.     Following these incidents T.B. left the parish. 2.     Parish of Saint Nicholas, Făleşti 56.     In a letter of 20 May 1994 the vice-president of the provincial council for the province ( raion ) of Făleşti rebuked G.E., priest of the parish of Saint Nicholas and a member of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, for having celebrated the Easter service on 9 May 1994 in the town cemetery, that being an act contrary to the Religious Denominations Act because the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was illegal. For the same reason he was forbidden to conduct divine service in future whether inside a church or in the open air. The vice-chairman of the provincial council warned G.E. not to implement a plan he had to invite priests from Romania to attend divine service on 22 May 1994, given that he had not first obtained official authorisation, as required by section 22 of the Religious Denominations Act. 57.     In November 1994 G.E. was fined 90 lei (MDL) for officiating as a priest of an unrecognised Church, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The Court of First Instance upheld the penalty, but reduced the amount of the fine to MDL 54 on the ground that G.E. did not hold any office within the Church concerned. 58.     On 27 October 1996, before the beginning of divine service in the parish church, several persons, led by a priest of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, violently assaulted G.E., drawing blood, and asked him to join the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. They also attacked the priest’s wife, tearing her clothes. 59.     G.E. managed to escape into the church, where the service was taking place, but he was pursued by his assailants, who began to fight with the congregation. A policeman sent to the scene managed to persuade the aggressors to leave the church. 60.     On 15 November 1996 the parish meeting published a declaration expressing the parishioners’ indignation about the acts of violence and intimidation to which members of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia were subjected, requested the authorities to cease to condone such acts and demanded official recognition for their Church. 61.     On 6 June 1998 the applicant Petru Păduraru, Metropolitan of Bessarabia, received two anonymous telegrams warning him not to go to Făleşti. He did not lodge any complaint about this. 3.     Parish of Saint Alexander, Călăraşi 62.     On 11 July 1994 the applicant Ioan Eşanu, priest of the parish of Saint Alexander, was summoned by the president of the Călăraşi provincial council to a discussion about the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. That discussion was also attended by the mayor of Călăraşi, the secretary of the provincial council and the parish clerk. The president of the provincial council criticised the applicant for his membership of the applicant Church, which made him a fellow-traveller of those who supported union with Romania. He then gave him one week to produce a certificate attesting to recognition of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, failing which he would have to leave the parish. 4.     Parish of Cania (Cantemir) 63.     In a letter of 24 November 1994 to the Metropolitan of Bessarabia, V.B., a Romanian national, priest of the parish of Cania, reported that he was under intense pressure from the authorities of the province of Cantemir, who had upbraided him for belonging to the applicant Church. 64.     On 19 January 1995 V.B. was summoned to the police station in Cantemir, where he was served with a government decision cancelling his residence and work permits and ordering him to leave Moldovan territory within seventy-two hours and to hand over the permits concerned to the relevant authorities. 5.     Incidents in Chişinău 65.     On 5 April 1995 Vasile Petrache, priest of the parish of Saint Nicholas, informed the Metropolitan of Bessarabia that the windows of the church, which was affiliated to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, had been broken during incidents that had taken place on the nights of 27 to 28   March and 3 to 4 April 1995. 66.     A similar attack occurred in the night of 13 to 14 May 1995. Vasile Petrache lodged a complaint on each occasion, asking the police to intervene in order to prevent further attacks taking place. 67.     In the night of 3 to 4 September 1996 a grenade was thrown by unknown persons into the house of the Metropolitan of Bessarabia, causing damage. The applicant lodged a complaint about this at the police station in Chişinău. 68.     In autumn 1999, after the death of Vasile Petrache, the Metropolitan of Bessarabia appointed the applicant Petru Buburuz as the parish priest of Saint Nicholas. Following that appointment the church of Saint Nicholas was occupied by representatives of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, who locked it and prevented the adherents of the applicant Church from entering. They also took possession of the parish documents and seal. 69.     On 8 December 1999 the police issued a summons against Petru Buburuz for organising a public meeting in front of Saint Nicholas’s church on 28 November 1999 without first obtaining the authorisation required for public meetings. 70.     On 28 January 2000 Judge S. of the Buiucani Court of First Instance discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not organised a meeting but had merely celebrated a mass in his capacity as priest at the request of about a hundred believers who were present. Judge S. also noted that the mass had been celebrated on the square, as the church door had been locked. 6.     Incident in Buiucani (Chişinău) 71.     In the night of 3 to 4 September 1996 a grenade was thrown into the house of P.G., a member of the clergy of the applicant Church. On 28   September 1996 P.G. was threatened by six persons unknown to him. He immediately lodged a criminal complaint. 72.     In a letter of 22 November 1996 to the President of Moldova, the Minister of the Interior expressed his regret about the slow progress of the investigations into P.G.’s complaints and informed him that on that account disciplinary penalties had been imposed on the police officers responsible for the inquiry. 7.     Parish of Octombrie (Sângerei) 73.     In a report of 22 June 1998 to the Metropolitan of Bessarabia the parish clerk complained of the actions of one M., a priest of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, who was trying, with the help of the mayor of Bălţi, to oust P.B., a priest of the applicant Church, and have the village church closed. No complaint was lodged with the authorities on this subject. 8.     Incidents in Cucioaia (Ghiliceni) 74.     On 23 August 1999, according to the applicants, Police Captain R., claiming to be a