CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 96 April 2007 Ivanova v. Bulgaria - 52435/99 Judgment 12.4.2007 [Section V] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Employment terminated on account of religious beliefs: violation   Facts : The applicant, employed as a non-academic school staff, was a member of a Christian Evangelical Group, known as “Word of Life”, which pursued clandestine activities due to the authorities’ refusal to register it. Its meetings were periodically thwarted by the police and media waged a campaign against it, calling for the dismissal of its members and naming, among others, the applicant in this respect. Following the inquiries by the regional prosecutor’s office and the National Security Service, the regional governor and a Member of Parliament threatened the educational inspector with dismissal unless he took radical measures to curb the religious activities at the school and dismiss the principal. In October 1995 the principal was dismissed for, inter alia , not having dismissed members of staff who were followers of Word of Life and for tolerating its activities. Later on, the applicant was put under pressure to resign or renounce her faith as the education inspector threatened her with dismissal irrespective of her work performance. She refused. In a radio interview the Member of Parliament singled out the applicant’s post as still being occupied by a member of Word of Life. In December 1995 a new principal dismissed her on the ground of not meeting the requirements for the post. A new roster of posts for the school was approved, effective as of January 1996, which transformed the applicant’s post into a new one, with essentially the same duties and responsibilities, but requiring a university degree. The applicant brought proceedings before the district court claiming that her dismissal had been unlawful and had amounted to religious discrimination. The court dismissed her claims and she appealed unsuccessfully. Law : At the heart of the case was the question whether the applicant’s employment had been terminated solely as a result of the school’s need to change the requirements for her post, as the Government had claimed, or whether, as she argued, she had been dismissed because of her religious beliefs. The Government’s submissions on that point had been somewhat ambiguous and contradictory. By assessing the sequence of events in their entirety, the Court reached the conclusion that the applicant’s employment had been terminated, in reality, because of her religious beliefs and affiliation with Word of Life. That constituted an interference with her right to freedom of religion at variance with Article   9. The fact that the applicant’s employment had been terminated in accordance with the applicable labour legislation – by introducing new requirements for her post which she failed to meet – did not eliminate the substantive motive for her dismissal. The Court considered the State’s responsibility to be engaged by the fact that the applicant was employed as a non-academic staff member at the school, which was under the direct supervision of the Ministry. Moreover, it noted activities such as the breaking up of gatherings of Word of Life around the country and the involvement of other authorities and officials in the events in question. Those events hinted at a policy of intolerance on the part of the authorities during the relevant period towards Word of Life, its activities and followers. The dismissal of the applicant soon after the appointment of a new principal appeared to have resulted directly from the implementation of that policy. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 589 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes