CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15452/07 Petya Atanasova DIMITROVA against Bulgaria lodged on 12 March 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Petya Atanasova Dimitrova, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Sofia. She is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background and decision of 13 May 1994 At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the religious community Word of the Life ( Слово на живот ). In the beginning of the 1990s the community attempted to register as a foundation, but the registration was refused on 1 March 1994 in a final judgment the Supreme Court, which found that the registration documents presented to it did not contain all the information required by law. On 13 May 1994 a prosecutor at the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office adopted a decision whereby he observed that Word of the Life was an illegitimate organisation, given that it had been refused registration as a foundation and had not been registered as a religious denomination, and that it represented a branch of the “sect” Word of the Life ( Livets Ord ) based in Uppsala, Sweden, from which it received financial and other aid. Referring to information received from the Directorate of Religious Denominations attached to the Council of Ministers, he noted further that this “sect” had been linked to cases of suicide, depression and violations of human rights. The prosecutor considered, in the next place, that the religious leaders of Word of the Life in Bulgaria could be practicing on their followers illegal methods of hypnosis and intoxication and that the beliefs preached by the organisation were leading to aggressiveness and hatred towards, and fear of, others. He noted that there were no cases of suicides linked to the organisation in Bulgaria, but that its beliefs and practices could lead to social isolation and emotional instability. Relying on a statement by the Committee for the Protection of the Person and the Family, he considered also that the organisation was interfering with the private life of its members and aimed to establish total control over their personalities. On the basis of the above and relying, in particular, on Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the time, the prosecutor ordered the police to take measures to restrict the organisation’s access to places where it could hold meetings and preach its beliefs and convictions. Upon an appeal by members of the community, the above decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor. A copy of his decision has not been provided to the Court. 2.     Search of the applicant’s flat It appears that following the decision of 13 May 1994 groups of Word of the Life members organised meetings in private homes, one of which was the applicant’s. On 8 September 1995 a prosecutor at the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office granted permission for a search of the applicant’s flat. On 27 September 1995 the applicant was summoned and interviewed by the police in relation to her religious beliefs and to meetings of members of Word of the Life in her home. The police then accompanied the applicant to her flat and searched it. They seized a number of items, including audio tapes with religious content, notebooks with sermons, brochures, books, magazines and video tapes. After the search the police issued a warning order ( протокол за предупреждение ) to the applicant not to host in her home further meetings of members of the religious community. The order relied, inter alia , on the decision of the prosecutor of 13 May 1994. 3.     Civil proceedings On 1 December 1995 the applicant brought an action against the Sofia Police Directorate, arguing that her questioning on 27 September 1995 related to her religious beliefs and that the ensuing search of her home, seizure of a number of items and warning order had humiliated her and had damaged her good name in the society. She considered that these actions had been unlawful and had breached her freedoms of religion and of assembly. The applicant claimed damages and sought that the chattels seized from her flat during the search be returned. In a judgment of 28 February 1998 the Sofia District Court partially allowed the actions, finding that the applicant’s questioning by the police and the warning order had been lawful, but that the search and the seizure had been unlawful as they had not been undertaken in the framework of any investigation concerning an offence and as the items seized had not been intended to be used in criminal proceedings. The District Court awarded the applicant 25,000 old Bulgarian levs (the equivalent, at the time, of 25   German marks) for damages and ordered that the items seized on 27   September 1995 be returned. Upon appeals by the parties, on 29 July 2002 the Sofia City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, insofar as it concerned the order for the police to return to the applicant the chattels seized. Insofar as it concerned the remainder, namely the award of damages, it remitted the matter for a fresh consideration. Following a new examination of the case, on 8 February 2002 the Sofia District Court dismissed the action. It found that the impugned actions of the police had not been performed “in the course of or in connection with the performance of an administrative activity”, as provided for in the relevant provisions of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act, and, moreover, that the police officers had acted pursuant to orders of the prosecution authorities. As to the prosecution authorities themselves, they could not be held liable for decisions such as the ones which had led to the police actions complained of by the applicant, because such decisions were not among the specifically enumerated ones capable of giving rise to liability for the prosecution under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act. Upon an appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 2 October 2006 the Sofia City Court upheld the District Court’s findings. It noted expressly that in ordering measures against Word of the Life and the search of the applicant’s flat the prosecution authorities had acted pursuant to Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning freedom of religion, the activities of unregistered religious organisations, searches and seizures and the prosecution’s power to order measures for the prevention of crime had been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Boychev   and   Others v. Bulgaria (no. 77185/01, §§ 25-26 and 31-38, 27   January 2011). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention that the measures taken against her, namely her questioning by the police, the search and seizure and the warning order, interfered with her rights to private life and to manifest her religious beliefs. She considers that the measures were not in accordance with the law and that, in any event, they were not necessary as there was no risk of the commission of an offence. She argues that the measures against her were driven by intolerance towards minority religious groups. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had at her disposal no effective domestic remedies in relation to the complaints above. 2.     The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings she was a party to were excessively lengthy.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the events of 27 September 1995 amount to an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law (see   Boychev   and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 77185/01, § 45-53, 27   January   2011)? Did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary, as required under Article 9 § 2? In particular, did the prosecutor’s decision of 13 May 1994 contain sufficient and adequate reasoning justifying restrictions to the activities of Word of the Life (see, mutatis mutandis , Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia , no. 302/02 , §§ 108-160, 10   June   2010)?   2.     Did the facts complained of also breach the applicant’s right to private life, as guaranteed under Article 8, and the right to freedom of assembly and association, as guaranteed under Article 11 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints under Articles   8, 9 and 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Boychev and Others , cited above, §§ 54-58)?   4.     As concerns the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies (see the communicated cases of Balakchiev and Others , application no. 65187/10, and Valcheva and Abrashev , applications nos. 6194/11 and 34887/11)? If so, was the length of the civil proceedings initiated by the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1?