CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 décembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   638 16.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SUPREME HOLY COUNCIL OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of the Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria (application no. 39023/97).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant organisation 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicant is the Supreme Holy Council (Висш духовен съвет) of the Muslim Community, headed by Nedim Gendzhev, a Bulgarian national, born in 1945 and living in Sofia. A t the relevant time it was one of two rival groups claiming leadership of the Muslim community in Bulgaria.   At the end of 1991 the Union of Democratic Forces (Съюз на демократичните сили, the SDS) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (Движение за права и свободи, the DPS) formed a new government. On 19 February 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations, a governmental agency, declared Mr   Gendzhev’s election as Chief Mufti of the Muslims in Bulgaria null and void and appointed an interim governing body for the Muslim community. The governing body organised a national conference which deposed Mr Gendzhev as leader of the Muslim community and granted legal recognition to the rival group.   In 1995 a further change in government was followed by Mr Gendzhev and his group being reinstated.   Following a general election in Bulgaria in April 1997 the SDS formed a new government and urged the country’s rival Muslim groups to join together. On 30 September 1997, representatives of the rival factions signed an agreement to convene a national conference aimed at unifying the two groups. It was decided that the assembly of each local community attending a mosque should elect two delegates to attend the conference.   Mr Gendzhev and his group withdrew from the conference, however, on the ground, among other things, that local majors and members of the DPS who were allegedly supporting the rival group had interfered in the election proceedings. The applicant organisation alleged that the participation of the Directorate of Religious Denominations in the preparation of the conference amounted to unacceptable State interference in the internal affairs of the Muslim community.   The conference, held on 23 October 1997, elected a new leadership from the rival group and, on 28 October 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister registered the newly-elected leadership, which took over all the organisational aspects and assets of the Muslim community in Bulgaria.   The applicant organisation appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Administrative Court.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 September 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 8 July 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicant complained, under Article 9 (freedom of religion), that the Bulgarian authorities intervened in the affairs of the Muslim community by organising and manipulating the October 1997 Muslim Conference in support of a rival faction. The applicant also relied on Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).       Decision of the Court   Article 9 The Court noted that, in 1992 and 1995, prior to the unification process of 1997, changes of government were swiftly followed by State action to replace religious leaders and grant legal recognition to one of the two Muslim groups. It was highly significant that the relevant law as applied in practice required – and still requires – all believers belonging to a particular religion and willing to participate in the community’s organisation to form a single structure, headed by a single leadership even if the community was divided, without the possibility for those supporting other leaders to have an independent organisational life and control over part of the community’s assets. The law thus left no choice to the religious leaders but to compete in seeking the recognition of the government of the day.     Against that background, the fact that in 1997 the new government called for the unification of the divided Muslim community was of particular significance. The Court further considered that the applicant organisation’s allegation that the mayors of a number of localities and political figures participated too closely in the selection of delegates to the October 1997 assembly did not appear implausible.   The Court also observed that the Directorate continued to insist on “unification" despite the fact that the leaders of the applicant organisation decided to withdraw. It was not for the State to decide whether or not Mr Gendzhev and the organisation presided over by him should or should not withdraw. The Directorate could have noted the failure of the unification effort and expressed readiness to continue assisting the parties through mediation, if all concerned so desired.   The Court therefore found that there had been an interference with the applicant organisation’s rights under Article 9, in that the relevant law and practice and the authorities’ actions in October 1997 had the effect of compelling the divided community to have a single leadership against the will of one of the two rival leaderships. The leaders elected by the October 1997 conference obtained the status of the sole legitimate leadership of the Muslim community and, as a result, the applicant organisation was deprived of the possibility of continuing to manage autonomously the affairs and assets of the part of the Muslim community it represented.   The Court reiterated that the autonomous existence of religious communities was indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society. While it might be necessary for the State to take action to reconcile the interests of the various religions and religious groups that coexisted in a democratic society, the State had a duty to remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory power and in its relations with the various religions, denominations and beliefs. What was at stake was the preservation of pluralism and the proper functioning of democracy.   In democratic societies, the State did not need in principle to take measures to ensure that religious communities remained or were brought under a unified leadership. The role of the authorities in a situation of conflict between or within religious groups was not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerated each other.   State measures favouring a particular leader of a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community, or part of it, to place itself under a single leadership against its will would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion.   Finding that the interference with the applicant organisation’s rights under Article 9 was not necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public order or the rights and freedoms of others, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 9.   Article 13 The Court observed that the applicant organisation was provided with a judicial remedy. Its claim that there had been unlawful and arbitrary State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community was examined on the merits by the Supreme Administrative Court. It decided against the applicant organisation in the light of domestic law and practice, which force a divided religious community to have a single leadership.   The Court reiterated that Article 13 did not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing an applicant to challenge before a national authority the laws of a State which had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights as being contrary to the Convention. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13.   Articles 6 and 14 The Court found that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Articles 6 and 14.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.