CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mai 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 97 May 2007 Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 412/03 and 35677/04 Decision 22.5.2007 [Section V] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Alleged State intervention in a leadership dispute within a church and consequential loss of property: admissible   This case concerns alleged State intervention in a leadership quarrel within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church that began in 1989, following the democratisation of Bulgaria, when the legitimacy of the incumbent Patriarch Maxim was challenged by a movement which considered his appointment to have been in violation of traditional canons and the statute of the Church. The applicant organisation represented that movement and gathered support among a number of churches and monasteries. It appointed its own leader, but was unsuccessful in its attempts to have him registered as the Head of the Church. In 2001 a newly elected government publicly expressed their opinion that Patriarch Maxim was the legitimate leader of the Church and stated their intention to introduce legislation to put an end to the divisions within the Church. This was achieved through the introduction of the Religious Denominations Act 2003. It provided for the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and required its registration by the city court. The applicant organisation then applied to the city court for the registration of its local organisation in Sofia. Its request was made by its leader Metropolitan Inokentii, who stated that he headed and represented the Holy Synod and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. However, the city court, in a decision that was upheld on appeal, rejected the request, noting that it had not been submitted by Patriarch Maxim. Thereafter, religious ministers who continued to support the applicant organisation were dismissed and local prosecutors were instructed to assist the Church, as represented by Patriarch Maxim, to recover premises that had allegedly been unlawfully occupied by the applicant organisation. In one of the decisions authorising eviction, the prosecutor noted that the 2003 Act did not allow the existence of more than one religious denomination with the same name and prohibited the use of the name and property of a religious denomination by persons who had seceded from it. In 2004 police blocked more than fifty churches and monasteries in the country, evicted religious ministers and staff who identified with the applicant organisation and transferred possession of the buildings to representatives of Patriarch Maxim. According to the applicant organisation, these buildings included several new churches that had been built entirely under its leadership. The applicants complain of State interference in the internal dispute within the Church and with their freedom of religion through the arbitrary, unlawful and unnecessary acts of the authorities that had compelled them to accept Patriarch Maxim's leadership and deprived them of property they had built with their own funds. Admissible under Articles   6 (access to a court), 9 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes