CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2011

.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. 143 July 2011 Pantusheva and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 40047/04, 14973/08, 2044/05 et al. Decision 5.7.2011 [Section IV] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Follow-up applications not requiring assessment of appropriate redress or payment of financial compensation: struck out   Facts – The instant case concerned the same events that led to the European Court’s finding of a violation of Article   9 of the Convention in Holy Synod and Others *. All the applicants were supporters of the “alternative leadership” of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (“the Church”) presided over by Metropolitan Inokentiy. Following the adoption of the Religious Denominations Act 2002 the activities of the alternative leadership were suppressed and the Church was forcibly united under the control of Patriarch Maxim. In a massive police operation in 2004, supporters of the alternative leadership were evicted from all churches, monasteries and administrative premises that they controlled allowing clergy and staff loyal to Patriarch Maxim to take possession. Some of the applicants were present and were physically evicted. In their applications to the European Court the applicants complained, inter alia , that they had been the victims of an unlawful and arbitrary State interference in the internal affairs of the Church. Law – Article 9: The complaints in the instant case were identical to those that had led to a finding of a violation of Article   9 in Holy Synod and Others . When dealing with groups of follow-up applications involving an already identified violation of the Convention, the Court had different options: it could decide to adjourn all or part of the applications pending the introduction of an effective domestic remedy, continue their examination in order to secure timely relief or, if the conditions were present, strike them out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 §   1 of the Convention. It was this latter option which the Court considered most appropriate in the instant case. In Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom * the Court had indicated that in considering whether to strike out follow-up applications it would have regard, in particular, to the nature of the violation, the fact that no individual examination was required in order to assess appropriate redress and the fact that no financial compensation was payable. In Holy Synod and Others the Court had clearly established that the impugned events had given rise to a violation of Article   9 in respect of every active member of the affected religious community and had declined to award damages to individual applicants or to order individual measures. Accordingly, nothing was to be gained and justice would not be best served by the repetition of those findings in a lengthy series of identical cases and such an exercise would not contribute usefully or in any meaningful way to the strengthening of human-rights protection under the Convention. Nor, in the applicants’ case, was it necessary to defer striking out the applications until the Government had made the legislative amendment to the Religious Denominations Act 2002 the Court had indicated as a general measure in Holy Synod and Others . Unlike the position in Greens and M.T. , the violation found in Holy Synod and Others did not concern a permanent statutory ban on exercising a Convention-protected right but particular events which had happened in 2003-04 and did not give rise to a continuing situation. The general measure indicated in Holy Synod and Others was necessary to prevent possible future violations of the Convention in the event of religious leadership disputes, should they occur, not to put an end to an existing situation violating the applicants’ rights. Furthermore, the applicants in the present case were affected by the Convention violation not because of their legal status (unlike the serving prisoners concerned in Greens and M.T. ) but simply because they happened to be active members of a religious community at a time when the State interfered with its organisation. In those circumstances, the progress in the Bulgarian authorities’ compliance with the Court’s judgments in Holy Synod and Others could not be seen as directly decisive for the approach to be taken to the examination of the Article   9 complaints in the present case. No particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols required the Court to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 §   1 in fine . Conclusion : struck out (unanimously). * Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   412/03 and 35677/04, 22   January 2009, Information Note no.   115. ** Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom , nos.   60041/08 and 60054/08, 23   November 2010, Information Note no.   135.   © 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