CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 février 2007

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   132 27.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BISERICA ADEVĂRAT ORTODOXĂ DIN MOLDOVA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and Others v. Moldova (application no. 952/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article   9 .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova (the “True Orthodox Church in Moldova”) and ten Moldovan nationals, who joined together to form the Church, and applied for registration by the Government on the basis of the Religious Denominations Act (Law   no.   979-XII of 24   March 1992).   When the authorities refused to register the Church by letter of 29 November 2000, the applicants instituted court proceedings. On 30 August 2001 the Court of Appeal accepted their claim and ordered the Government to register the Church. The court also awarded each of the applicants 1,000 Moldovan lei (approximately 85 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice and thus became final and enforceable.   The applicants subsequently requested enforcement, while the Judgments Enforcement Department unsuccessfully sought to secure the Government’s compliance with the judgment. On 12 July 2002 the Religious Denominations Act was amended and the procedure for the registration of religious denominations was simplified. On the basis of those amendments, on 7 August 2002 the applicants asked the “State Organ for the Protection of Religious Denominations” to register the Church.   However, the State Service for the Protection of Religious Denominations rejected that request because it “had not received any request for the registration of any religious denomination”. The Service could not register the Church until the relevant State Registry had been established and the necessary documents had been filed with it. On 22 November 2002 the applicants submitted the relevant documents to the Service.   On 24 August 2004 the Decisions Enforcement Department issued a writ of enforcement to the Service. By its letters of 1 and 11 November 2002 and 14 March 2003 the Department requested the Service to comply with the earlier judgment, but to no avail.   The Government made three attempts to re-open the proceedings by claiming the discovery of new and relevant information which had not been previously known. These requests were rejected by decisions of the Court of Appeal on 7 May 2003 and the Supreme Court of Justice on 1 October 2003 and 20 October 2004.   In June 2004 the applicants submitted a new request and a set of accompanying documents, requesting the registration of the Church. They received no reply.   The pecuniary part of the judgment of 30 August 2001 was enforced on 27 July 2005.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 November 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .             3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to register the Church affected their right to freedom of religion and association and that the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgment in their favour violated their rights, notably under Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 9   The Court considered that the authorities’ refusal to register the applicant Church constituted an interference with the right of the applicant Church and the other applicants to freedom of religion, as guaranteed by Article 9 § 1. It had therefore first to determine whether that interference had been “prescribed by law”.   The Court noted that the domestic courts had accepted the applicants’ claims and had ordered the registration of the Church. In doing so, they had expressly rejected all the arguments advanced by the Government against registration. Moreover, they had rejected on three occasions the authorities’ requests to re-open the proceedings. Furthermore the enforcement authority had continuously insisted on the enforcement of the judgment, despite the alleged impossibility to register the applicant Church due to the failure to submit the necessary documents. In fact, such documents had been submitted twice, to no avail, even though it appeared that that was not necessary under the relevant legislation. The Court therefore took the view that the refusal to register the applicant Church had had no legal basis under Moldovan law and that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion had not been prescribed by law.   Having found that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion was unlawful, the Court did not see any need to verify whether that interference pursued a legitimate aim or was “necessary in a democratic society”, within the meaning of Article 9 §   2 of the Convention. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 9.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted that the applicants had had to wait almost four years to obtain the money owed to them under the final judgment in their favour. With reference to its case-law, the Court considered in particular that the reasons for the belated enforcement advanced by the Government could not justify a delay of more than three years, considering that the debtor in the applicants’ case was the State itself. In that respect, it was irrelevant which of the State authorities had participated in the court proceedings and which of them had been responsible for complying with the final judgment. Accordingly, the Court found that the failure to enforce the judgment of 30 August 2001 within a reasonable time constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Article 13 in conjunction with Article 9   The applicants asserted that domestic law did not afford any remedy for the complaints they had submitted to the Court.   The Court observed that the applicants’ complaint that the refusal to register the applicant Church infringed their right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 had undoubtedly been arguable. The applicants were therefore entitled to an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13.   The applicants had made numerous requests to the authorities to have the Church registered. The Enforcement Department made a number of similar requests. The Department even proposed to the courts that penalties should be applied to those responsible for failing to enforce the final judgment, which recommendation was apparently rejected. It followed that the Department could not be considered to have failed in its duties and that the failure to enforce was rather due to a more general problem of lack of an effective mechanism to ensure compliance with a final judgment.   The Court concluded that in respect of the applicants’ request to have the Church registered they had no effective remedy available to them. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.   Other articles   The Court further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the case also from the standpoint of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article   9, and that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.