CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mai 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   388 12.05.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MASAEV v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Masaev v. Moldova (application no. 6303/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of Mr Masaev not having been invited in time to attend his court hearing; a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), on account of him having been fined for practising Muslim rituals, part of a religion not recognised by the State; it had not been necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 3 and under Article 13 in combination with Article 9.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 26   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Talgat Masaev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Rezeni. He is a Muslim.   On 30 January 2004, he, together with a group of other Muslims, was praying on private premises, in particular in a house rented by a non-governmental organisation whose leader he was. The gathering was dispersed by the police and Mr Masaev was subsequently charged with the offence of practising a religion not recognised by the State.   In February 2004 Mr Masaev was found guilty as charged by a domestic court which ordered him to pay a fine. Mr Masaev contested this decision before the appellate court, but his application was dismissed without reasons and without inviting him to attend the hearing.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 September 2004 and examined together for admissibility and merits on 16 April 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom) , President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, and on Articles 9 and 13, Mr Masaev complained of having been fined for practising Muslim rituals, of not having had an effective remedy to challenge this, and of not having been invited to appear at the court hearing of his appeal.   Decision of the Court   Article 9   The Court noted that any person manifesting a religion, which had not been recognised in accordance with the relevant domestic law - the Religious Denominations Act - had been automatically liable to sanctions in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offences. However, while the State had been free to require the registration of religious denominations, it should not have punished individual members of an unregistered religious denomination for praying or otherwise manifesting their religious beliefs. Accepting such an approach would amount to the exclusion of minority religious beliefs not formally registered with the State, which in turn would mean that the State could dictate what a person could believe. The Court held that the limitations imposed on the right to freedom of religion of Mr Masaev, as a result of the application of the Code of Administrative Procedure, had been in violation of Article 9.   Article 13 in combination with Article 9   The Court held that it was not necessary to examine this complaint separately in view of its finding under Article 9.   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   The Court noted that Mr Masaev had not received in time the summons inviting him to attend the court hearing of his appeal. Further, the Moldovan Government had acknowledged explicitly that this had breached his right to a fair trial. In the light of the latter, and of its earlier case law, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and it was not necessary to examine separately his complaint under Article 6 § 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.