CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD2032F13 { margin-top:10pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.6pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .sC1130787 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBB7D2EFF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:26.61pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.59pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s5DA889E2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s15842A2B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCA2F8346 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC4822D35 { width:7.74pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5180A526 { width:29.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sED2C25E { width:23.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v.   ROMANIA   (Application no. 76943/11)                   JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG   19 May 2015       THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 29/11/2016   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Ján Šikuta ,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 April 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   76943/11) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a parish, diocese and archpriesthood situated in that State, namely the Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish, the Lugoj Greek Catholic Diocese and the Lupeni Greek Catholic Archpriesthood ( Protopopiatul ) (“the applicants”), on 14   December 2011. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms D.O. Hatneanu and Ms   C.T.   Borsanyi, lawyers practising in Bucharest and Timișoara respectively. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     Alleging a refusal by the domestic courts to determine on the basis of ordinary law what they considered to be their right of ownership over a church building, the applicants complained, inter alia , that there had been a breach of their right of access to a court and a failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty. They also complained about the length of the proceedings for restitution of the place of worship. Relying on essentially the same facts, they also alleged violations of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and of their right to freedom of religion, and a violation of the prohibition on discrimination. 4.     On 18 December 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. 5.     On 8 April 2014 the Chamber decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, to invite the Parties to submit further observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application. 6.     Ms Iulia Antoanella Motoc, the judge elected in respect of Romania, withdrew from the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court). The President of the Chamber accordingly appointed Ms Kristina Pardalos to sit as an ad hoc judge in her place (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicants belong to the Eastern-Rite Catholic (Greek Catholic or Uniate) Church. A.     The historical background to the case 1.     The legal framework governing the Greek Catholic parishes   8.     Until 1948 the Greek Catholic parishes owned various properties, including churches and adjacent land, parish houses and cemeteries. 9.     The Uniate Church was dissolved by Legislative Decree no.   358/1948. By virtue of the same Legislative Decree, properties belonging to that Church were transferred to the State, except for parish property. An inter-departmental committee with responsibility for determining the ultimate allocation of those properties never completed its task. Parish property was transferred to the Orthodox Church under Decree no.   177/1948, which provided that if the majority of one Church’s adherents became members of a different Church, the former’s property would be transferred to the ownership of the latter. 10.     After the fall of the communist regime in December 1989, Decree no.   358/1948 was repealed by Legislative Decree no.   9/1989. The Uniate Church was officially recognised by Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 on certain measures concerning the Romanian Church United with Rome (the Greek Catholic Church). Article 3 of that Legislative Decree provided that the legal status of property that had belonged to the Uniate parishes was to be determined by joint committees made up of representatives of both Uniate and Orthodox clergy. In reaching their decisions, the committees were to take into account “the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of these properties” (see paragraph 38 below). 11 .     Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 was supplemented by Government Order no. 64/2004 of 13 August 2004 and Law no.   182/2005. The Decree, as amended, specified that in the event of disagreement between the members of the clergy representing the two denominations on the joint committee, the party with an interest entitling it to bring judicial proceedings could do so under ordinary law (see paragraph 40 below). 2.     The legal situation of the applicants and of their church   12.     The applicant parish, diocese and archpriesthood were dissolved on the basis of Legislative Decree no.   358/1948. In 1967 the church and the adjoining courtyard, which had belonged to the applicant parish, were entered in the land register as having been transferred to the ownership of the Lupeni I Romanian Orthodox Church. 13.     The applicant parish was legally re-established on 12 August 1996. It comes under the authority of the Lugoj Greek Catholic Diocese (the second applicant) and the Lupeni Greek Catholic Archpriesthood (the third applicant). The applicants took steps to have the church and adjoining courtyard returned to them. B.     The attempts by the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Greek Catholic Church to reach a friendly settlement 1.     Meetings of the joint committee   14.     The Orthodox Church and the Greek Catholic Church convened meetings of a joint committee, composed of senior representatives of the two denominations, with a view to determining the fate of the church buildings that had belonged to the Greek Catholic Church. Between 1998 and 2003 the joint committee met on seven occasions. The Greek Catholic party submitted a list of the churches claimed by it, including that of the applicant parish. It also proposed a friendly settlement, recommending that in those municipalities where there were two church buildings, one of them be restored, and that in municipalities where there existed only one church building but the two denominations were present, religious services be organised on an alternate basis. The Orthodox side refused this proposal. 15.     During the meetings, the representatives of the two denominations noted that the dispute would be protracted and called for dialogue at local level and the construction of new church buildings for both denominations. At the final meeting the Orthodox side refused to return the properties and referred to the wishes of the majority of the adherents. 16.     The applicant parish convened a meeting at local level with the Orthodox parish which held the property in issue, scheduling it for 9   November 2004. The Orthodox side did not attend, and nor did it attend a further meeting scheduled by the applicant party for 10   June 2006.   2.     Meeting of the interested parties under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs 17.     In the meantime, on 5 April 2002, at the initiative of the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs (“the Ministry”), a meeting took place at the Bucharest headquarters of the State Secretariat for Religious Affairs under the title “Fraternal Dialogue”. At that meeting, the representatives of the Orthodox Church had emphasised the importance of constructing new churches in order to resolve the problem. The Government’s plans to launch a church-building programme had been welcomed. The Ministry had asked the Greek Catholic side to provide it with a more detailed list of the places of worship claimed by that denomination. 18.     According to the applicant parish, the Greek Catholic side had duly handed over the requested documents to the Ministry, but the latter took no further action. C.     The judicial proceedings brought by the applicants 19 .     Previously, on 23 May 2001, the second applicant, namely the Lugoj Greek Catholic Diocese, citing also the other two applicants, had brought proceedings before the domestic courts against the Arad Orthodox Archdiocese and the Lupeni Orthodox Parish. It requested that the expropriation of the church building and cemetery in Lupeni, carried out on the basis of Decree no. 358/1948, be set aside, and that the church be returned to the applicant parish. 20.     By a judgment of 10 October 2001, the Hunedoara County Court (“the county court”) declared the action inadmissible on the ground that the dispute ought to be settled through the special procedure established by Legislative Decree no.   126/1990, that is, by means of the joint committee. 21.     An appeal against that judgment by the second applicant was dismissed by a judgment of the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal (“the appeal court”) on 25   March 2003, which held that the action was premature. On an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) by the applicant parish and the second applicant, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in a final judgment of 24   November   2004, sent the case back to the same appeal court for a fresh examination of the merits. 22.     On 12 May 2006, in application of the legislative amendments which gave the courts jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the cases (see paragraph   11 above), the appeal court upheld the second applicant’s appeal and sent the case back to the county court. 23.     On 27 July 2006, when the case was restored to the county court’s list, the action was amended in order to add the applicant parish and the third applicant as claimants in the proceedings. On 8   November 2006 the claimants supplemented their action with a claim for recovery of possession of the church building in question, on the basis of ordinary law. 24 .     The county court asked the Greek Catholic and Orthodox parties to organise a meeting in order to decide the fate of the church in question, and to inform it of the outcome of the negotiations by 25   April 2007. 25.     On 20 April 2007 a meeting was held between the representatives of the applicants, the Orthodox Church and the Lupeni Mayor. The Orthodox Church refused to return the church, arguing that the majority of believers in the municipality were Orthodox. The applicant parish replied that the ownership of property was not related to the number of practising adherents in a congregation. The minutes of the meeting were transmitted to the county court, which continued its examination of the case. 26.     By a judgment of 27 February 2008, the county court dismissed the applicants’ action on the ground that the Lupeni Orthodox parish had become the legally recognised owner of the property in question by virtue of Decree no.   358/1948. The applicants lodged an appeal. By a judgment of 26   September 2008, the appeal court set aside the judgment of 27   February   2008 on formal grounds and remitted the case to the county court. 27.     By a judgment of 13 February 2009, the county court found in favour of the applicants and ordered that the church be returned to the applicant parish. In comparing the title deeds of the parties to the dispute in respect of the property in question, the county court noted that the Greek Catholic party had been entered in the land register as owner of the property from 1940, and that in 1967 the Orthodox Church had entered its ownership right in the land register by virtue of Decree no. 358/1948. It held that the repealing of Decree no. 358/1948 had had the effect in the present case of terminating the Orthodox party’s right of ownership over the disputed property. It added that the applicant parish did not have a place of worship and that it was obliged to rely on the Roman Catholic Church, which rented the parish its premises for religious services. 28.     The Orthodox parish lodged an appeal against that judgment. 29 .     By a judgment of 11   June 2010, the appeal court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants’ action. It described how the proceedings had developed and noted that the case had been instituted by the second applicant in 2001 and joined by the two other applicants in July 2006, after it was restored to the county court’s list. On the basis of the evidence in the case file, it noted, firstly, that the church building being claimed and the two Lupeni parish houses had been constructed between 1906 and 1920 by members of the Eastern-rite Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches and that, after its construction, the church building had been used alternately for services by both denominations. It noted that in 1948 the members of the Greek Catholic Church had been obliged to “move” to the Orthodox Church and that the church building had become the property of the Orthodox Church, which had maintained it and carried out improvements. 30.     The court of appeal questioned three witnesses, including two Orthodox believers who stated that they no longer intended to return to the Greek Catholic Church to which they had belonged prior to 1948. The third witness stated that she was one of the few Greek Catholics in Lupeni. The appeal court noted that the statements by these witnesses supported the statistical data, which showed that there were more Orthodox than Greek Catholic adherents in Lupeni. 31.     It further held that the county court had carried out its comparison of the title deeds without taking into consideration the wishes of the majority of those currently in possession of the building, a criterion that, as the appeal court noted, had been laid down in Article 3 § 1 of Legislative Decree no.   126/1990. In so far as there were more Orthodox adherents than Greek Catholic adherents in Lupeni – taking account also of those who had converted and no longer wished to return to the Greek Catholic Church – their wishes had to be taken into consideration in ruling on the case. It found that “having regard to the social and historical realities, ignoring the wishes and proportional strength of Orthodox adherents, who are in the majority, in relation to the less numerous Greek Catholic worshippers, would be to contravene the stability and certainty of legal relations”. 32.     Lastly, the court of appeal noted that the fact that Decree no.   358/1948 had been repealed did not automatically mean that the Orthodox Church’s title to the building was set aside, and that this Decree had represented the law in force at the time that the ownership right was transferred. In consequence, it considered that, even if it had been granted unlawfully, the Orthodox Church’s title had been valid from the date on which the transfer had been made, with the result that the action to recover possession was ill-founded. 33.     The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, alleging that the appellate court had incorrectly applied the legal provisions governing actions for recovery of possession. They emphasised that the right of ownership could not be linked to a religion’s majority status, since ownership was, in their submission, a legal concept that was independent of the numerical strength and wishes of the parties. 34.     In a final judgment of 15 June 2011, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicants’ appeal by a majority and upheld the appeal judgment. It held as follows: “With regard to a request for restoration of a place of worship which had belonged to the Romanian Church United to Rome (the Greek Catholic Church), the appellate court correctly established the special legal framework for ruling on those claims. Pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 ... a distinction is made between two situations: (a)   that in which the property is within the ownership of the State ... (b)   that in which the places of worship and the parishes have been taken over by the Romanian Orthodox Church and in respect of which [the question of] restitution will be decided by a joint committee made up of representatives of the clergy of the two denominations, a committee which will take account of the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of these properties. In the light of those provisions, the appellate court, examining an action for recovery of possession of a place of worship, correctly applied the criterion of the wishes of the adherents (Orthodox in the majority) of the community in possession of the property, while simultaneously emphasising the unlawfulness of the reasoning provided by the first-instance court, which had merely compared the title deeds and ignored the special law... The fact of supplementing Article 3 [of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990] with a paragraph stating “ If the committee does not meet within the period established in its mandate, or if the committee does not reach a conclusion or if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the committee, the party which has an interest is entitled to bring judicial proceedings under ordinary law ” does not mean that actions for restitution governed by the special provisions are transformed into applications to establish title under ordinary law. A court which is required to examine such an action cannot ignore the special regulations in this area, which indicate the criterion to be taken into account in resolving such claims, namely the wishes of the adherents of the community in possession of the property. In other words, by virtue of its full jurisdiction and in order not to compromise access to justice, a court may be called upon to decide an action on the merits, even though the prior procedure did not culminate in a decision by the joint clerical committee; at the same time, however, it may not go beyond the limits imposed by the special statutory framework. The priority to be given to the criterion of the adherents’ wishes was decided by the legislature, which wished in this way to regulate an area which concerns the buildings assigned to a particular use (places of worship), [and so] the court was not authorised to criticise the law. Moreover, in ruling on the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 3 of Decree no.   126/1990 and the criterion of the adherents’ wishes, the Constitutional Court has stated that the text did not infringe the Romanian State’s principle of democracy, nor that of the freedom of religious denominations (CC decision no.   23/1993, CC decision no.   49/1995). Democracy “also implies the application of the principle of majority rule, as set out in the final part of Article 3 – the wishes of the adherents of the community in possession of these properties – which introduces a social criterion, that of the choice of the majority of the worshippers”. Equally, it has been established that “the freedom of religious denominations implies not only their autonomy with regard to the State, but also freedom of religious belief”; where “in the same parish there are Orthodox and Greek Catholic worshippers, the application of the social criterion – namely [the wishes] of the majority of parishioners – in deciding on the allocation of places of worship and parish houses is compatible with the democratic principle of determining the religious use of the said property, given that this is the wish of the majority of those who benefit from such use, because “were it otherwise, this would mean that the Orthodox adherents, who are in the majority, would be unjustifiably prevented from practising their religion unless they transferred to the Greek Catholic Church”. In addition, the procedures for regulating social relations and restoring the assets ( averi ) of the religious communities are a matter of legislative policy (and not of judge-made law, which would attempt to settle such issues by judicial means, to the exclusion of the special law); it cannot be claimed that by introducing the criterion of the wishes of the faithful the [special] law failed to achieve its compensatory purpose. The appellate court considers that – in a State subject to the rule of law – the fact that the State unlawfully dispossessed the Greek Catholic Church of its places of worship in 1948 cannot be remedied by committing the opposite error, that is, in failing to take account of the wishes of the majority of worshippers at the point of adopting the given measure. However, returning the properties which belonged to the Greek Catholic Church without respecting the criteria imposed by Article   3 §   1 of Legislative Decree no.   126/1990 would infringe the stability and security of judicial relations. A right cannot be reconstructed in abstracto , in disregard of social and historical realities, and mitigation for past damage must not create disproportionate new problems... In order to bring an action under ordinary law for recovery of possession without being subject to the special law, the applicants must be able to claim that there existed a “possession” or a right of ownership to their property. However, through Decree no. 358/1948, the Greek Catholic Church was outlawed and its assets were transferred to the State; the building in dispute [was] registered as belonging to the Lupeni I Romanian Orthodox Church. The fact that, through Legislative Decree no. 9/1989, the Romanian Church United to Rome (Greek Catholic) was officially recognised following the repeal of Decree no. 358/1948 does not mean that its title to property was restored, in so far as the right of ownership is subject to a procedure (namely the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 and its subsequent amendments), as the hope of obtaining title to property is not to be equated with a possession... Contrary to the arguments of the parties having lodged the appeal on points of law [ recurentilor ], the solution adopted does not infringe the freedom to practice a religion, since, as they submitted in their own observations, “ the practice of religion is a private matter” , which consists primarily in a “ strong and personal spiritual investment ”. At the same time, the legislature provided for the scenario where the places of worship could not be returned; thus, Article 4 of Legislative Decree no.   126/1990 provides that “ in those municipalities where the number of places of worship is insufficient in relation to the number of believers, the State shall provide support for the construction of new churches; for that purpose, it shall make available to those denominations the necessary land if the denomination does not possess it, and shall contribute to raising the necessary funds” . Thus, the State, as the authority with power to control life in society, will guarantee that the necessary conditions for the manifestation of religious beliefs are met without ... the exercise of this right being limited by the number of adherents (a substantive limitation). The State’s task here is to fulfil a positive obligation, so as to contribute to the effective exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and religion...” 35.     In a separate opinion, one of the judges sitting on the case noted that the legislature’s reference to ordinary law could not be reduced to a purely procedural dimension, but was to be interpreted as the application of a rule of substantive law. Referring to the rules governing the preparation of statutes, the judge indicated that, if the legislature had wished to ascribe a specific meaning to this reference to “ordinary law”, it ought to have done so explicitly. He also cited Article   31 §   3 of Law no.   489/2006 on religious freedom and the legal status of religious denominations, according to which property differences between denominations were to be resolved by friendly settlement and, where that proved impossible, on the basis of ordinary law. After indicating that an action for recovery of possession implied a comparison of the relevant titles to the property, the judge concluded that the Orthodox Church did not have title to the place of worship in question. D.     Other information about the case 36.     According to a memorandum provided by the National Institute of Statistics, in 2002 there were 501   Greek Catholic adherents and 24,815   Orthodox adherents in Lupeni. The applicant parish is currently holding religious services at scheduled times in premises rented by it from the Roman Catholic Church in Lupeni. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The legal provisions concerning places of worship 37.     The relevant domestic law in this case, as in force at the material time, namely the pertinent articles of the Constitution and of Decree no.   177/1948 on the general scheme of religious denominations, were set out in the case of Greek Catholic Parish Sâmbata Bihor v. Romania (no.   48107/99, §§ 35-37, 12   January 2010). 38.     Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 on certain measures concerning the Romanian Church United to Rome (the Greek Catholic Church) was published in Official Gazette no. 54 of 25   April 1990. In so far as relevant, it provides as follows: Article 1 “Following the repeal of Decree no. 358/1948 by Legislative Decree no.   9 of 31   December 1989, the Romanian Church United to Rome shall be officially recognised...” Article 3 “The legal situation of the religious buildings and parish buildings which belonged to the Uniate Church and were appropriated by the Romanian Orthodox Church shall be determined by a joint committee, made up of representatives of the clergy from both of the two religious denominations, which shall take into consideration the wishes of the adherents in possession of those properties ( dorinţa credincioşilor din comunităţile care deţin aceste bunuri ).” Article 4 “In the municipalities where the number of places of worship is insufficient in relation to the number of believers, the State shall provide support for the construction of new churches; for that purpose, it shall make available to those denominations the necessary land if the denomination does not have it, and shall contribute to raising the necessary funds.” 39.     Article 3 of the above-mentioned Legislative Decree was supplemented by Government Ordinance no.   64/2004 of 13 August 2004 (“Order no. 64/2004”), which entered into force on 21 August 2004 and which added a second paragraph, worded as follows, to that provision: “Should the members of the clergy representing the two denominations on the joint committee fail to reach an agreement within the joint committee provided for in Article   1, the party with an interest in bringing judicial proceedings may do so under ordinary law.” 40 .     Law no. 182/2005 of 13 June 2005 (“Law no. 182/2005”), which entered into force on 17   June 2005, amended the second paragraph of Article 3, inserted by Order no.   64/2004, and added two further paragraphs, as follows: “The party with an interest in bringing proceedings shall convene the other party, by communicating in writing its claims and providing the evidence on which it bases those claims. The meeting shall be convened by registered post with a form for acknowledgment of receipt, or by personal delivery of the letter. A period of at least thirty days shall elapse between the date of receipt of the documents and the date fixed for the meeting of the joint committee. The committee shall be made up of three representatives from each denomination. If the committee does not meet at the end of the period fixed for its meetings, or if it does not reach a conclusion or if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the committee, the interested party may bring legal proceedings under ordinary law. The action shall be examined by the courts. The action shall be exempt from court tax.” 41.     Government Emergency Ordinance no. 94/2000 on the restoration of buildings having belonged to religious denominations in Romania, as amended on 25 July 2005 and published in the Official Gazette on 1   September 2005, provides: Article 1 “(2)     The legal status of buildings which serve as places of worship shall be governed by a special law.” 42.     Law no. 165/2013 on the finalisation of the restitution process, in kind or on the basis of equivalent compensation, of property unlawfully transferred to State ownership under the communist regime in Romania does not apply to claims for restitution submitted by the Greek Catholic community with regard to places of worship. B.     The relevant provision of the Civil Code on the right of property 43 .     Article 480 of the Civil Code provides: “Ownership is the right to right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, provided that one does not use them in a way prohibited by law.” 44.     Legal opinion and the case-law define an action for recovery of possession, which is not regulated by statute, as an action by which the owner of a property who has lost possession of it to a third party seeks to have his or her title to the property re-established and to obtain possession of it from the third party. 45.     The Romanian courts have considered that it is sufficient during recovery proceedings to examine the two titles, namely those of the claimant and the respondent, in order that the court examining the action may declare that one of them had priority ( este mai caracterizat ) over the other on account, for example, of its chronological priority or the fact that it had previously been included in a land register (see, for example, judgment no. 2543/1996 of the Ploieşti Court of Appeal, published in M. Voicu and M. Popoacă, Dreptul de proprietate şi alte drepturi reale. Tratat de jurisprudenţă 1991 – 2002 ( Ownership and other rights in rem . Treatise on the case-law ), Ed. Lumina Lex, Bucharest, 2002, p. 358; see also no.   1554/2000 of the Cluj Court of Appeal). C.     The domestic case-law concerning the actions for restoration of church buildings brought by various Greek Catholic parishes 46.     The parties submitted to the case file judicial decisions concerning the actions brought by Greek Catholic communities against Orthodox communities with a view to obtaining restitution of places of worship. The majority of these actions were based on Article 480 of the Civil Code and sought to obtain rectification of the entries in the land registers in which the Orthodox communities had recorded their ownership rights to the disputed properties. 1.     Decisions issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice 47.     The High Court of Cassation and Justice examines actions as a court of final instance, on an appeal ( recurs ) by the parties. 48 .     In a series of decisions added to the file (see, for example, the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s judgments of 5   February 2013, March   2013, 19 March 2013, 16   May 2013 and 2 October 2013, of 16   May 2012 and 12 December 2012, and of 26   January 2011 and 24   November   2011), the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that, although the Greek Catholic party had brought an action under ordinary law to recover possession, it could not overlook the criterion of the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of these properties, laid down in the special law, namely Legislative Decree no. 126/1990. In another series of cases, the High Court of Cassation and Justice overturned the decisions of the lower courts, remitting the cases for fresh examination, on the ground that the criterion laid down in the special law had not been applied (see, for example, the judgments of 24 March 2009, 9   November 2010, 14   November 2012 and 11   December 2012, and of 7   February 2013). 49.     In a judgment of 20 June 2013, the High Court of Cassation and Justice granted an action to recover possession in a context where the two denominations existed in a village where, although only two of the village’s ninety residents belonged to the Greek Catholic Church, the church building being claimed was not used by the Orthodox Church. 50.     In some judgments, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled on claims for possession by comparing the titles held by the parties to the dispute as these were entered in the land register (see, for example, the judgments of 10 March 2011, of 16 May 2012, 2   October 2012 and 21   November 2012, and of 1   October 2013). In a final judgment of 25   November 2008, the High Court of Cassation and Justice remitted a case to the lower courts for judgment after having noted that the Orthodox Church was entered in the land register and that the criterion of the adherents’ wishes was applicable only during the preliminary procedure before the joint committees. 2.     The case-law of the Constitutional Court 51 .     The Constitutional Court was required to examine a plea of unconstitutionality with regard to Article   3 § 1, in fine , of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990, which states that the legal situation of places of worship is to determined taking into account “the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of the properties”. According to the party which submitted the plea of unconstitutionality, this legal text was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution which protect freedom of conscience and the right of property. In decision no.   23 of 27   April 1993, the Constitutional Court dismissed that objection and held that this criterion, applied by the joint committees, was compatible with the Constitution. Following another plea of unconstitutionality, it confirmed its position in decision no. 49 of 19 May 1995. 52.     By a decision of 27 September 2012, the Constitutional Court confirmed its previous case-law and rejected the complaint that the above ‑ mentioned Article 3 was unconstitutional, ruling as follows: “... democracy implies the application of the majority principle, yet the last part of Article 3, [namely] “which will take into account the wishes of the adherents in the communities in possession of the properties” enunciates this principle by introducing a social criterion, that of the wishes of the majority of the parishioners. The [Constitutional] Court has held that the freedom of religious denominations implies not only their autonomy with regard to the State ... but also freedom of religious belief... Where, there are Orthodox and Greek Catholic worshippers in the same parish, the application of the social criterion – namely the wishes of the majority of parishioners – in order to decide the fate of places of worship and parish houses is compatible with the democratic principle of determining the religious use of that property, where this is the will of the majority of those who enjoy that use. To rule otherwise would mean that the Orthodox worshippers, who are in the majority, would be unjustifiably prevented, by a measure contrary to their wishes, from practising their religion, short of moving to the Greek Catholic Church”. However, this would be contrary to Article 57 of the Constitution, according to which citizens must exercise their rights and freedoms in good faith and without infringing the rights and freedoms of others. If, in a scenario of restitution of ownership rights, the choice of the majority were to be ignored, this would be in breach of good faith and would be contrary to respect for the rights of others... Such a measure would be in breach of Article 29 of the Constitution, which enshrines the freedom of religious denominations in its two forms – a denomination, as a religious organisation and association, and as the practice of a rite. Equally, it would infringe the provisions of the Constitution governing the relationship between religions ..., according to which ‘freedom of conscience is guaranteed; it must be exercised in a spirit of mutual tolerance and respect’, and Article 29 § 4, [which provides] ... ‘in the relations between denominations, all forms, all means, all deeds and all actions of religious discord shall be prohibited’. Indeed, in such cases, the majority would be forced to accept the wishes of a minority.”   D.     Appeal in the interests of the law   53.   Under Article 329 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 514 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, in force since February 2013, the Principal Public Prosecutor in the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting on his or her own motion or on a request by the Minister of Justice, and also the governing councils of the appeal courts, and, more recently, the governing councils of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and the Ombudsman, are entitled to request that the High Court of Cassation and Justice rule on questions of law which have been decided in different ways by the courts, with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation and application across the country. The decisions are issued in the interests of the law, and do not have an effect on the judicial decisions that are examined or the situation of the parties in the proceedings. The courts must comply with the conclusion reached by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.   III.     COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORTS CONCERNING ROMANIA   54.     The Third Report on Romania by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (“ECRI”), adopted on 24 June 2005 and published on 21   February 2006, contains the following observations: “Legislation on religious denominations ... 15.     ECRI notes with concern reports that although it does not have the status of a state religion, the Orthodox Church, which is the majority religion in Romania, holds a dominant position in Romanian society. The other religions thus consider that the Orthodox Church has too much influence on the authorities’ policies. It also appears to receive benefits that the other religions do not have, such as chapels in prisons and detention centres. This Church is also said to exert a lot of influence over government decisions on matters such as the award of status as a religious cult to religious associations. ECRI also notes that given the number and diversity of officially recognised and practised cults in Romania, the inter-religious dialogue between the Orthodox Church and other religious denominations could be improved. In particular, the dialogue between this Church and the Greek Catholic Church is apparently at a low ebb, mainly on account of the manner in which the authorities handle the issue of the restitution of property confiscated during the communist period. 16. ECRI also notes with concern reports that members of the Orthodox Church were engaging in all manner of harassment against followers of the Greek Catholic Church with a certain degree of complacency from the authorities. ECRI has also been informed that although religious education is not compulsory in Romania, there are cases in some state schools where pupils receive religious instruction against their parents’ will. ... 45.     ECRI notes with concern that the restitution of churches previously belonging to the Greek Catholic Church has become a source of tension between the latter and the Orthodox Church. Despite attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Orthodox Church refuses to return these churches to the Greek Catholic Church and the authorities do not appear to be taking action to enforce the law. ECRI therefore hopes that the authorities will take a more active part in resolving issues relating to the restitution of Greek Catholic churches to ensure that the law is applied fairly, in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect...” 55.     ECRI’s Fourth Report on Romania, adopted on 19 March 2014 and published on 3   June 2014, contains the following observations: “22. In its third report, ECRI recommended that the Romanian authorities enforce the law governing property restitution and encourage religious denominations, particularly the Orthodox Church and other religious minorities, to initiate a constructive dialogue on this point. It also recommended that the authorities introduce mediation arrangements, hold inter-religious colloquies and seminars and conduct information campaigns to promote the idea of a multidenominational society. 23. The authorities have confirmed that property disputes between the Orthodox Church and the Greek Catholic Church have led to tensions between the two confessions. On a general note, the Orthodox Church has been slow in returning Greek Catholic churches received in 1948 by the State and has often refused to do so. 24. A joint commission, composed of representatives of the clergy of the two churches, has been in place since 1999 in order to resolve these property disputes; the work of this commission, however, does not seem to have yielded significant results. The National Authority for Property Restitution has informed ECRI that since 2005, out of 6,723 restitution claims, 1,110 have been processed ... An advisory Council of the Churches and Religious Denominations was also set up in April 2011 in order to promote solidarity and cooperation and prevent conflicts between the different religions in Romania; it meets up to twice a year. ECRI welcomes the above ‑ mentioned efforts and encourages the authorities to take a leading role in resolving these disputes, which, again, relate to property confiscated by the State.” 56.     The Romanian Government’s response to ECRI’s Fourth Report, in so far as relevant to this case, is worded as follows: “With regard to paragraphs 22-25, the State Secretariat for Religious Denominations constantly sought to act as a mediator for defusing the tensions between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Church United with Rome (Greek Catholic), and was actively involved in finding solutions convenient to both sides in their patrimonial dispute; the State Secretariat for Religious Affairs supports financially the projects of building new houses of worship in the areas where one of the parties becomes irrevocably the owner of the house of worship previously disputed. The National Authority for Property Restitution/NAPR also continued the series of meetings with the representatives of the two churches, during which the discussed aspects concerned the state of solution of applications lodged before the special restitution commission and the difficulties encountered within the restitution process. During these meetings aspects related to the situation of properties which belonged to the Greek Catholic Church and which are currently held by the Romanian Orthodox Church were also discussed, the encouragement of the dialogue between the two churches with a view to reaching a friendly solution of the patrimonial dispute. As regards the present state of solution of restitution demands lodged by the Greek Catholic Church before the special restitution Commission, it is to be underlined that out of 6,723   restitution demands, 1,110 have been solved (a percentage of 16.51%). The situation of restitution demands finalised according to the manner of their solution: Restitution in kind: 139 Proposal for damage: 52 Rejection: 66 Other solutions (redirection, renunciation, etc.): 853” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 57.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants alleged an infringement of their right of access to a court. In this connection, they complained that in determining their case, the domestic courts had not applied the rules of ordinary law but had obliged them to comply with a criterion laid down by the special law on the non-contentious procedure (namely, the wishes of the adherents of the community in possession of the property) although, according to the applicants, the application of that criterion had not been foreseeable. The Court has already held that, where such issues arise, the guarantees of Article   13 are absorbed by the stricter guarantees of Article 6 (see Ravon and Others v. France , no.   18497/03, §   27, 21   February 2008). It follows that the applicants’ allegations fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants also complained about the length of the proceedings. 58.     The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” A.     Admissibility 59.     The Court notes at the outset that the applicants’ action was