CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8B1C0247 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#cccccc } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEA734167 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#cccccc } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3890E0F { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#cccccc } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1536B7BA { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s11BEB50D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEAD1FDBB { margin-left:54pt; text-indent:-46.9pt; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s44DA25BD { width:13.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1C90AC38 { width:6.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION Application no. 35839/07 PAROHIA GRECO-CATOLICA PESCEANA and others against Romania lodged on 4 April 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants in the present case are the Greek-catholic parish of Pesceana, a religious body created on 20 January 2005 in Pesceana, as well as some of its members, Romanian nationals living in Pesceana whose names, dates of birth and places of residence appear in the annex to this document. The applicant Mr Victor Tudor acts as their representative; he was born in 1964 and lives in Cermegesti-Pesceana, Vâlcea County. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Origins of the case On 19 January 2005 Victor Tudor, who was at that time the orthodox priest from Pesceana parish in Vâlcea County, together with 358   members of his parish decided to join the Eastern Catholic Church (“the Greek-Catholic Church”). The next day they were recognised as parish by Blaj Greek-Catholic Archeparchy ( Mitropolia Româna Unită cu Roma Blaj ) and Mr Tudor was ordained priest of that parish. The applicant parish became thus legitimate according to the applicable laws. On 22 January 2005 the Pesceana local authorities refused to recognise the new parish, denied its members access to the village church and cemetery and advised Râmnicul Orthodox Diocese ( Episcopia Râmnicului ) to take appropriate action against Mr Tudor. On 29 March 2005 the local council reiterated its decision. On 3 June 2005 they also refused to allow the Greek-catholic parish to hold its religious gatherings in a deserted school building. On 24 January 2005 Mr Tudor resigned from his previous position in the Orthodox Church. He was defrocked the next day. A new orthodox priest was sent by the Orthodox Church to the local parish. On 24 February 2005 the Ministry of Culture and Cults asked the Greek-Catholic Archeparchy to re-examine its decision to ordain Mr   Tudor as catholic priest in Pesceana. They suggested that his withdrawal could facilitate the dialogue between the two parishes in the community. Meanwhile, Râmnicul Orthodox Diocese filed a request, by means of the urgent procedure ( ordonanţă preşedenţială ), concerning the possession of the church property. In a final decision of 8 March 2005 the Vâlcea County Cout ordered Mr Tudor to surrender the property belonging to the orthodox church to the plaintiff and to stop using the village church and cemetery for Greek-catholic practices. On 27 May 2005 the Pesceana local authorities transferred the property title concerning the cemetery to the orthodox parish. On 17 June 2005 they delivered the title deeds for the land to the orthodox parish. However, on 10   October   2008 these deeds were declared null and void by the Vâlcea County Court, in an action opposing the Greek-catholic church to the Pesceana local authorities. Several members of the Pesceana Greek-Catholic parish lodged a complaint against the local authorities and the orthodox community, with the National Council against Discrimination. The Council examined the administrative decision of 22 January 2005. It noted that the plaintiffs were denied access to the church building and the village cemetery. It concluded that the local authorities breached the applicants’ freedom of conscience and disregarded their religious autonomy. Consequently, the Council issued a warning for the local authorities. It gave its decision on 31 August 2005. The conflicts between the two religious communities escalated. The orthodox prohibited the catholic from entering the cemetery to bury their dead or honour their memory. According to the applicants, they had suffered increased pressure to revert to orthodoxy: they were asked to sign a renunciation of Catholicism if they wanted the local authorities to deliver any official acts, they received unjustified fines, some of them were threatened with dismissal from their jobs and the local school organised a public manifestation against the Catholic Church. The Greek-Catholic Archeparchy intervened in their favour, by engaging in a written exchange with the local authorities. This, however, remained fruitless. Several criminal complaints were also lodged by both parties to the conflict. B.     Requests for access to the village cemetery 1.     The urgent procedure Using the urgent procedure, the applicant parish sought to compel the orthodox parish to allow the Greek-catholic the right to use the village cemetery for burying the dead and for memorial services. In a final decision of 19 January 2006 the Vâlcea County Court found in favour of the applicant parish. The court noted that the applicant parish had been recognised by the Greek-Catholic Church, and was thus legally constituted. It reiterated that, according to Law on Religious Worship, as the village had only one cemetery, all individuals had to have access to the burial grounds, irrespective of their faith. However, the Greek-catholic continued to be denied access to the cemetery by the orthodox community. On 3 February 2006 the county court issued an enforcement order concerning the decision of 19 January 2006. However, the bailiff’s attempts to enforce that decision remained futile because of the strong opposition by the orthodox community. Not even the police intervention on behalf of the applicants was able to deter the opposing parish. According to the bailiff’s report, the new orthodox priest refused to assist him and the Greek-Catholics of the village in the enforcement attempts or to talk with his believers. He claimed that he was engaged in other religious duties at that moment. 2.     The normal procedure Several members of the applicant parish (see annex two below) lodged an action against the orthodox parish and Râmnicu Orthodox Diocese seeking access to the cemetery to bury the dead and perform the adjacent rituals. The final ruling in the case was given on 26 February 2009 by the Piteşti Court of Appeal. Using the same arguments as those advanced by the County Court in the urgent procedure, the Court of Appeal recognised the rights for the Greek-catholic members of the community to be buried in the Greek-catholic tradition. However, it decided that the persons who embraced the catholic faith are not allowed to perform catholic rituals for the deceased members of their families who had been buried according to the orthodox tradition. In deciding so, the court of appeal considered that the person’s own convictions at the time of death should be subsequently respected by the family in the choice of rites. C.     Current situation It appears that the applicants are still forbidden from entering the cemetery. COMPLAINTS 1 .     Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain about the impossibility to use the village cemetery, despite them being in the possession of a final decision giving them right to access the grounds. They also complain about the manner in which the domestic courts decided not to allow them to practice Greek-catholic rituals for the deceased members of their families who had been buried according to the orthodox rite . 2.     The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention that the decisions and actions of the domestic authorities breached their freedom of conscience and religion and as a consequence they cannot effectively practice their religion. In particular they argue that, despite court decisions in their favour, they cannot access the cemetery to bury their dead. Furthermore, they are not allowed to pay respects to their dead according to the rites of their religion. 3.     Lastly, they allege being victims of discrimination based on their religion. They rely in substance on Article 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can all the applicants claim to be victims of a violation of their rights prescribed by the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?   2.     Did the applicants have access to a court, within the meaning of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the enforcement of the final decisions of 19 January 2006 by the Vâlcea County Court and of 26   February   2009 by the Piteşti Court of Appeal is concerned?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, in so far as they cannot use the village cemetery?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their religion contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 6 § 1 and 9 of the Convention? Annex 1 ( Applicants’ names, dates of birth and places of residence)   No. First name, LAST NAME Birth date Place of residence   ‘ PAROHIA GRECO-CATOLICA PESCEANA   Pesceana   Toma PREDESCU 07/05/1951 Cermegesti   Valerica PREDESCU 13/06/1956 Cermegesti   Ioan Mugurel NEDELUT 12/12/1987 Cermegesti   Ioan NEDELUT 25/05/1962 Cermegesti   Roxana Catalina NEDELUT 14/05/1992 Cermegesti   Ionel ZAULET 16/04/1969 Cermegesti   Ilie MANDA 25/04/1940 Cermegesti   Elena MANDA 28/10/1940 Cermegesti   Daniela GAINA 16/07/1968 Cermegesti   Gheorghe BUZATU 10/04/1941 Cermegesti   Elena BUZATU 29/08/1949 Cermegesti   Ioana VOINEA 03/11/1958 Cermegesti   Vasile VOINEA 06/10/1956 Cermegesti   Elena Monica VOINEA 20/05/1983 Cermegesti   Constantin Catalin VOINEA 03/07/1993 Cermegesti   Ion CARSTEA 14/12/1959 Cermegesti   Elena CARSTEA 26/09/1962 Cermegesti   Ilie POPA 02/06/1974 Cermegesti   Elena POPA 02/10/1974 Cermegesti   Gheorghe BERCEA 16/04/1952 Cermegesti   Niculina BERCEA 25/01/1955 Cermegesti   Maria ZAULET 30/08/1971 Cermegesti   Constantina DRAGOMIR 20/10/1938 Lupoaia   Marin FULGESCU 06/07/1935 Lupoaia   Zenovia FULGESCU 21/10/1934 Lupoaia   Gheorghe IBRAC 02/06/1942 Lupoaia   Elena IBRAC 02/10/1943 Lupoaia   Sandel FULGESCU 16/11/1955 Lupoaia   Victoria FULGESCU 17/05/1967 Râmnicu Vâlcea   Adriana DUTA 01/04/1985 Râmnicu Vâlcea   Maria SPATARU 31/08/1938 Lupoaia   Dumitru FULGESCU 25/03/1960 Lupoaia   Lucian PREOTEASA 26/01/1961 Lupoaia   Elena MATEI 25/10/1963 Lupoaia   Constantin PREDESCU 16/04/1934 Lupoaia   Ilie VILAU 26/03/1953 Lupoaia   Lucretia VILAU 17/05/1956 Lupoaia   Lucian CRUCERU 01/10/1938 Lupoaia   Ana CRUCERU 02/09/1949 Lupoaia   Constantin VOINEA 13/05/1973 Lupoaia   Doina VOINEA 08/08/1975 Lupoaia   Maria VOINEA 22/09/1944 Lupoaia   Ion IBRAC 08/05/1949 Lupoaia   Petre IBRAC 01/12/1961 Lupoaia   Andreea Ioana IBRAC 14/08/1989 Lupoaia   Elena IBRAC 17/10/1969 Lupoaia   Gheorghe BADEA 05/05/1957 Lupoaia   Maria BADEA 19/02/1960 Lupoaia   Bianca BADEA 29/01/1987 Lupoaia   Marian BADEA 28/02/1983 Lupoaia   Ionela Alexandra BADEA 27/10/1989 Lupoaia   Lucretia CRUCERU 06/04/1969 Lupoaia   Nicolae CRUCERU 13/08/1965 Lupoaia   Nicolae Iulian CRUCERU 05/07/1993 Lupoaia   Dumitru Cristian CRUCERU 03/01/1951 Lupoaia   Maria CREVENICEANU 14/08/1945 Lupoaia   Marcel FULGESCU 27/02/1947 Lupoaia   Cristina IBRAC 26/01/1990 Lupoaia   Sofronie POPESCU 11/09/1947 Cermegesti   Eugenia POPESCU 23/09/1952 Cermegesti   Traian FULGESCU 09/02/1952 Cermegesti   Gheorghita FULGESCU 21/02/1956 Cermegesti   Alexandru Gabriel CIUCA 12/09/1989 Băile Olănești   Annex 2 Applicants who lodged the action before the domestic courts in order to be allowed access to the village cemetery            Gheorghe BADEA          Ion CÂRSTEA          Maria CREVENICEANU          Lucretia CRUCERU          Dumitru FULGESCU          Gheorghita FULGESCU          Marin FULGESCU          Nicolae FULGESCU          Traian FULGESCU      Victoria FULGESCU      Elena IBRAC      Elena MATEI      Matei ION      Vasile NEAGU      Constantin PREDESCU      Nicolae SPATARU      Octavian TUDOR      Victor TUDOR      Lucretia VILAU      Ioana VOINEA