CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 31 June 2001 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova (dec.) - 45701/99 Decision 7.6.2001 [Section I] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Refusal to grant official recognition to a church: admissible The Metropolis of Bessarabia is an Orthodox church forming part of the patriarchate of Bucharest, which was in a state of turmoil as a result of events in the region. The successive annexations by the Soviet Union and Russia had led to the disappearance of the Metropolis, its place being taken by other rival churches from the Moscow patriarchate. Following the Moldovan declaration of independence in 1991, the applicant sought official recognition from the new State in October 1992. It received no reply to its request, but in December 1992 the Government recognised a separate church – the Metropolis of Moldova from the Moscow patriarchate – and another church of the same denomination a few months later. In March 1997 the Moldovan Court of Appeal ordered the Government to afford the applicant recognition, but in December 1997 that order was quashed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the application had been lodged out of time and that recognition would constitute an interference in the affairs of the Metropolis of Moldova. Notwithstanding differences of rite between the two churches, the Supreme Court held that members of the Metropolis of Bessarabia had access to places of worship through the churches of the Metropolis of Moldova. The applicant alleged, inter alia , that the refusal of official recognition meant that its members were exposed to acts of violence and intimidation without any protection from the authorities. It also complained that the refusal meant that it had no legal personality and therefore no locus standi before the courts. Admissible under Articles 6, 11 and 13 and Article 9 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14: With regard to the Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies), the Court noted that the applicants had applied to the Moldovan Court of Appeal to obtain recognition for the Metropolis of Bessarabia, relying on their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of association, and that their appeal had been allowed in March 1997. Admittedly, the Supreme Court had quashed that decision, holding that the applicants’ appeal had been lodged out of time (after the expiry of the statutory time-limit of one month from the date on which their application for recognition had been filed with the Government). However, although it had found that the action had been brought out of time, the Supreme Court had examined the merits of the applicants’ complaints and had dismissed them as ill-founded. Consequently, the applicants had satisfied the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies: admissible.   © 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