CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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   228 12.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IVANOVA v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ivanova v. Bulgaria (application no. 52435/99).   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; that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 589.23 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Kalinka Todorova Ivanova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Ruse (Bulgaria).   She was a member of a Christian Evangelical Group, known as “Word of Life”, which had become active in the early 1990s. Word of Life was one of a number of mainly protestant groups which were refused registration under the Persons and Family Act, effectively denying them legal status and, among other things, the possibility of hiring meeting halls and opening back accounts.   As a result of the authorities' refusal to register Word of Life, the religious organisation began clandestine activities. Meetings were periodically thwarted by the police followed by media propaganda against the organisation and its members.   Ms Ivanova had been employed as a “swimming pool manager” at the River Shipbuilding and Navigation School in Ruse where several of the non-academic staff were allegedly followers of Word of Life.   In October 1995 the school principal was dismissed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (the Ministry) for, among other things, not having dismissed members of staff who were followers of Word of Life and for tolerating its activities.   In November 1995 the applicant was put under pressure to resign or renounce her faith by the Chief Education Inspector for Ruse and his deputy, who said they would otherwise instruct the new principal to dismiss her. She refused.   In December 1995 the applicant was dismissed from the school because she no longer met the educational and professional requirements of her post.   On 27 May 1996 the applicant brought proceedings before Ruse District Court challenging the lawfulness of the dismissal and seeking reinstatement in her previous post and compensation for loss of income. She also alleged that her dismissal had been directly related to her religious beliefs and her refusal to resign, which amounted to religious discrimination.   On 5 May 1997 Ruse District Court dismissed her claims. The court found that her dismissal had been lawful and that her claim that her dismissal had been motivated by her religious beliefs was unfounded.   The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to Ruse Regional Court which, on 23 July 1997, found that the school had both a need and the right to change the roster of posts and the requirements for the applicant's post and to dismiss her because she did not meet those requirements. It also found that the district court had adequately addressed her allegations of religious discrimination and found them to be “totally and irrefutably ... irrelevant”.   The applicant filed a petition for review (cassation appeal), claiming that the lower courts had failed to assess properly the evidence before them and had never addressed the substance of her complaint alleging religious discrimination. In a final judgment of 9 December 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 May 1999 and declared partly admissible on 14 February 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 9 and 14, the applicant alleged that her right to freedom of religion had been violated because her employment had been terminated on account of her religious beliefs, which had amounted to discrimination on religious grounds.   Decision of the Court   Article 9   The Court observed that at the heart of the applicant’s case was whether her employment had been terminated solely as a result of the school's need to change the requirements for her post, as the Government claimed, or whether, as she argued, she had been dismissed because of her religious beliefs.   The Court noted that the Government had made lengthy submissions on the secular nature of the system of education and the need to preserve it. They referred to certain alleged instances of proselytising at the school by staff members, but did not provide any evidence that there had ever been any credible accusations that the applicant had engaged in such activities. The Government's submissions on that point had been somewhat ambiguous and contradictory, because, despite the lengthy arguments submitted in respect of the applicant's alleged involvement in proselytising at the school, they had explicitly claimed that the termination of her employment had had nothing whatsoever to do with her religious beliefs.   By assessing the facts in the case and considering the sequence of events in their entirety, rather than as separate and distinct incidents, the Court reached the conclusion that the applicant's employment had been terminated not simply because the requirements for her post had been altered, but 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 in Ruse, and at the school in particular. The dismissal of the applicant soon after the appointment of a new principal appeared, therefore, to have resulted directly from the implementation of that policy.   The Court found that the applicant's right to freedom of religion under Article 9 had been violated because her employment had been terminated on account of her religious beliefs.   Article 14   The Court considered that there as no need to separately examine the application under Article 14.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.