CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s48438219 { width:67.57pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sF9A986A5 { width:12.2pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     690   2.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF THE METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA   Tuesday, 2 October 2001 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia ( Mitropolia Basarabiei şi Exarhatul Plaiurilor) and eleven Moldovan nationals, Petru Păduraru, Petru Buburuz, Ioan Eşanu, Victor Rusu, Anatol Goncear, Valeriu Cernei, Gheorghe Ioniţă, Valeriu Matciac, Vlad Cubreacov, Anatol Telembici and Alexandru Magola. The eleven individual applicants are officials of the applicant church and live at Chişinău or in other Moldovan towns.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the refusal of the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to recognise the applicant church, a Christian Orthodox church. The refusal was upheld by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice on 9 December 1997 on the grounds that the issue of recognition of the applicant church could only be resolved by the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, a church recognised by the State from which the applicant church had broken away, and that any interference by the Moldovan authorities would only exacerbate the situation. It also held that the individual applicants and other members of the applicant church were free to practice their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.   Complaints   Relying on Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain of the Moldovan State’s refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia as a church and maintain that, under domestic law, churches may only function in Moldova if they have first been recognised by the authorities.   The applicants also allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) in that the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant church deprives it of legal personality and thereby denies it access to a court to air its complaints regarding its rights, in particular its rights of property.   They further allege under Article 9 taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that, as a result of being denied court protection, the applicant church is being discriminated against on religious grounds, to the detriment of its members’ rights to manifest and observe their religion. Furthermore, there is no valid basis for the refusal of recognition, since the Moldovan authorities have recognised other Christian Orthodox Churches.   The applicants also argue that the refusal of the authorities to recognise the applicant church or to regard the applicants as members of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova constitutes a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association)   Lastly, they complain of a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), since the lack of any legal protection for the applicant church means that they have no effective remedy before the domestic courts for the complaints now raised before the Court.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 June 1998 and was brought before the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 7 June 2001.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), judges , Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), substitute judges ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Ion Marei , Minister of Justice,     Vitalie Pârlog , Agent ,     Gheorghe Armaşu , Adviser ;   Applicants:   John Warwick Montgomery and Alex Dos Santos , Counsel .   The applicant Vlad Cubreacov will also attend the hearing.   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Judge elected in respect of San Marino.