CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s46F31693 { width:21.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s9C2604B { width:134.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18424/18 Lorica POPA against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   March 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   18424/18) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 April 2018 by a Romanian national, Ms Lorica Popa (“the applicant”), who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest, and was represented by Mr T.A. Oancea, a lawyer practising in Bucharest; the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the observations submitted by the Government; the comments submitted by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) and by the Institute for Legal Culture (Ordo Iuris), which had been granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the national courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s claim against a school’s decision to terminate her employment contract. The dismissal came as a result of a decision of the Eparchial Consistory to withdraw its endorsement ( binecuvântarea) , which had been granted in respect of the applicant by the Archbishop ( chiriah) for carrying out religious and theological teaching activities. 2 .     The applicant is a laywoman who had been working as a teacher of Orthodox religion at a secondary public school in Bucharest (“the school”) for four years. She had been a teacher since 1987, previously teaching chemistry for a certain period before beginning to teach Orthodox religion in 2004. 3.     On 15 October 2015 the Eparchial Consistory decided to withdraw the endorsement of the applicant, which had been granted by the Archbishop for carrying out religious and theological teaching activities. 4 .     The Eparchial Consistory stated that the reason for its decision was that the applicant had failed to convince enough students to sign up to Orthodox religion classes at her school, where only 45.73% of students had registered for Orthodox religion classes, and that she had additionally not informed the Consistory of the situation at the school in a timely manner. The Consistory also held that refusal of the students to register for the Orthodox religion class was attributable to the applicant and her conduct. 5.     The Consistory further found that the applicant had not obtained the status of spiritual daughter ( fiică duhovnicească) in the Bucharest Archdiocese, which it considered to be the result of negligence and disinterest, which had also manifested during her teaching activities. 6.     The Consistory notified the school of its decision to withdraw the endorsement on 30 October 2015. 7.     On 4 November 2015 the head of the school terminated the applicant’s employment contract, stating that her employment had been terminated automatically as a consequence of the decision of the Eparchial Consistory of 15 October 2015 to withdraw its endorsement of her and in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 § 1 (g) of the Labour Code, Article 32 §§ 2-3 of Law no. 489/2006 regarding religious freedom and the general regime of religions, and Article 18 § 3 of Law no. 1/2011 on national education. 8.     On 15 February 2016 the applicant appealed against the school’s decision of 4 November 2015. The applicant argued that the decision taken by the head of the school had been in breach of the provisions of Article   56 of the Labour Code, since the decision of the Eparchial Consistory was not definitive, it had not been lawfully communicated to her and she had not been given the opportunity to appeal against it within the ecclesiastical court system. The applicant argued that she had not been able to appeal against the decision within the required 15-day time-limit because she had been hospitalised during that period and had only been effectively informed of the Consistory’s decision in January 2016. The applicant also indicated that, since the withdrawal of the endorsement was not definitive, in her view, the termination of her employment contract by the head of the school had not been lawful. 9.     By a judgment of 29 June 2016, the Bucharest County Court, sitting as a bench of one judge and two judicial assistants, rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. The court held that the law was silent regarding the definitive nature of Eparchial Consistory decisions. 10.     The court further held that, in any event, in accordance with the provisions of Article   56   § 2 of the Labour Code, the school could not wait for the outcome of a potential appeal, as it had been obliged to terminate the contract within five days from the communication of the decision to withdraw the endorsement. 11.     The applicant appealed against the County Court’s judgment. She argued that when she had been hired as an Orthodox religion teacher at the high school in August 2011, her employer had not asked her to present an endorsement from the Archdiocese as a condition for her employment and that she had therefore not presented an endorsement to the school. In that regard, she argued that the school did not have a legal obligation to impose this condition at that time she was hired, since Protocol no. 9217/2014 (“the protocol”) signed between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Ministry of Education had only been signed in 2014, that is, three years after the applicant had been hired. 12.     By a final judgment of 14 September 2017, notified to the applicant on 12 October 2017, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. 13.     The Court of Appeal held that the applicant’s assertion to the effect that there had been no legal obligation to present an endorsement prior to the conclusion of the protocol in 2014 was incorrect, since several legal provisions in force at the time had required an endorsement. In that regard, the court cited Article 32 § 3 of Law no. 489/2006, Article 119 § 5 of the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church (approved by Government Decision no. 53/2008) and Article 18 § 3 of Law no. 1/2011. 14.     The Court of Appeal further found that the protocol cited by the applicant merely regulated the procedure to be followed when an endorsement was granted or withdrawn and that the legal basis for the termination of the employment contract was found in the above-mentioned legal provisions, which had been in force at the time of her employment. 15 .     Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had herself acknowledged in the initial court filing that she had been granted an endorsement by the Orthodox Church. This was also confirmed in the judgment of the Eparchial Consistory, which stated that she had been granted the endorsement in 2004 for a substitute teaching position and in 2007 for a titular position. 16.     Relying explicitly on Articles   6 §   1 and 14 of the Convention, and in substance on its Article 8, the applicant submitted that her right of access to a court and her right to respect for her private life had been violated. She also argued that this had disclosed discrimination in the treatment of teachers of religion relative to teachers of other subjects, since other teachers were not required to have an additional authorisation, such as an endorsement, a fact which she considered an impediment to the right to work. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 17.     The Court considers that the complaints raised under Article 14 taken together, in substance, with Article 8 of the Convention falls to be examined under Article 8 alone (see, mutatis mutandis , Fernández Martínez v. Spain ([GC], no. 56030/07, §   155, ECHR 2014 (extract)). 18.     The general principles flowing from the Court’s case-law under Article 8 of the Convention in relation to balancing the right to respect for private life with the State’s duty to protect the autonomy of a Church are summarised in Fernández Martínez (cited above, §§ 123-32). 19.     The Court considers that, given the termination of the employment contract of the applicant as a teacher of Orthodox religion at a secondary public school following the withdrawal of an endorsement granted by the Orthodox Church (see paragraphs 2-4 above), the present case is similar to Ţîmpău   v. Romania (no.   70267/17, §§   179-218, 5 December 2023). 20.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes at the outset that the applicant did not submit observations in reply to the Government’s observations. The Court is satisfied that the interference complained of had a legal basis in domestic law, that those provisions satisfied the “lawfulness” requirements established in its case-law and that there was a legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, namely those of the Orthodox Church and, in particular, its autonomy in choosing persons accredited to teach religious doctrine (see Ţîmpău, cited above, § 187; Fernández Martínez , cited above, §   122; and Travaš v. Croatia, no.   75581/13, §   86, 4   October 2016). 21.     In order to assess whether the interference complained of was necessary in a democratic society, including its proportionality, the Court reiterates that the relevant factors to be taken into account when balancing the right to respect for private life with the State’s duty to protect the autonomy of a Church in cases where the employment of a teacher of religion is terminated because the Church deems that he or she is no longer suitable for that position, include the following: the status of the applicant; the applicant’s situation; the State’s responsibility as an employer; the severity of the sanction; and the review by the domestic courts (see Ţîmpău, cited above, §   188). 22.     The Court takes the view that, despite her claims that she was not required to present an endorsement to the school, the fact that the applicant had received an endorsement for the teaching status she benefitted of and acknowledged this during the proceedings before the domestic courts (see paragraph 15 above) demonstrates that she should have been aware of its existence and therefore of the heightened duty of loyalty towards the Orthodox Church and the corresponding professional and disciplinary constraints involved. 23.     The Court further notes that it was, in principle, open to the applicant to seek other suitable employment in the education system on the basis of her qualification in chemistry and her previous experience in that field (see Ţîmpău , cited above, § 209). 24.     Lastly, in their assessment of the applicant’s case, the national courts did not analyse the merits of the Eparchial Consistory’s decision, but whether the decision by the school to terminate her employment was lawful in accordance with the ordinary labour law. The domestic courts concluded that the termination had been lawful. The Court finds that the domestic courts took all relevant factors into account and that they weighed up the interests at stake within the limits imposed on them by the need to respect the autonomy of the Orthodox Church. The conclusions reached do not therefore appear unreasonable to the Court, particularly in the light of the fact that the applicant was or should have been aware of the potential consequences of the heightened duty of loyalty vis ‑ à ‑ vis the Orthodox Church by which she thus became bound when she was first granted the endorsement to teach Orthodox religion (see Ţîmpău , cited above, §§ 214-16). 25.     In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. 26.     The applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention in relation to the alleged lack of reasoning of the domestic courts’ decisions and the alleged discrimination in the treatment of religion teachers relative to other teachers who were not subject to the obligation to have an endorsement or other authorisation to teach. 27.     The Government argued that the applicant had no "right" recognised under domestic law and, in substance, that Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil limb was not applicable. 28.     The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. In particular, the Court notes that in Ţîmpău (cited above, § 139) , it held that the applicant had no “right” which could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. 29.     The Court thus upholds the Government’s preliminary objection in this respect and considers that the civil limb of Article 6 does not apply to the facts of the present case and therefore the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 April 2026.     Valentin Nicolescu   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President