CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. December 1997 Canea Catholic Church v. Greece - 25528/94 Judgment 16.12.1997 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Catholic Church unable to take legal proceedings as a result of civil courts’ refusal to acknowledge that it had legal personality: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   PRELIMINARY ISSUES Applicant church had validly applied to Commission through the Catholic Bishop of the Islands of Syros, Milos and Thera and Acting Bishop of Crete. II.   GENERAL OBSERVATION Complaints mainly concerned a restriction on exercise of right of access to a court. III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Legal personality of Greek Catholic Church and of parish churches had never been called in question since creation of Greek State either by administrative authorities or by courts – those churches had acquired, used and transferred movable and immovable property, concluded contracts, taken part in transactions and enjoyed tax exemptions – settled case-law and administrative practice had, over the course of the years, created legal certainty, both in property matters and as regards representation of Catholic parish churches in legal proceedings, and applicant church could reasonably rely on that. Late compliance by applicant church with relevant rules of domestic law governing acquisition of legal personality or constitution of a union of persons (Article 62 of Code of Civil Procedure) might be interpreted as an admission that countless acts in the past had not been valid – transfer of property to a new legal entity would be problematical. Court of Cassation’s ruling that applicant church had no capacity to take legal proceedings had imposed on it a real restriction preventing it then and for the future from having any dispute relating to its property rights determined by the courts. Very substance of “right to a court” impaired. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 Applicant church, which owned its land and buildings, had been prevented from taking legal proceedings to protect them, whereas Orthodox Church or the Jewish community could do so in order to protect their own property without any formality or required procedure. No objective and reasonable justification for such a difference of treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1, EACH TAKEN ALONE OR TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION Unnecessary to consider case under these provisions (unanimously). VI.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: such damage sustained on account of inability to take legal proceedings to secure rebuilding of surrounding wall. B.   Costs and expenses: sum claimed held to be reasonable. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant church specified sums for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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