CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 septembre 2010

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 133 August-September 2010 Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction) - 412/03 and 35677/04 Judgment 16.9.2010 [Section V] Article 41 Just satisfaction State interference in the internal leadership dispute of a divided religious community: non-pecuniary damage award   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to amend legislation on religious denominations   Procedure – In a judgment of 22 January 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   9 of the Convention on account of the Bulgarian authorities having forced the divided Orthodox religious community to unite under one of its two rival leaderships. The question of the application of Article   41 was reserved (see Information Note no.   115). Law – Article 41 (a)     Claim for a return to the status quo ante – In the circumstances of the instant case, the principle of restitutio in integrum could not be seen as requiring the respondent State to engage in yet further interference in the internal organisation of the Church in order to restore the applicant organisation’s control over assets, reinstate clergy members in their previous positions or otherwise force a return to the status quo ante . Such actions would encroach on the internal autonomy of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Just satisfaction would therefore have to take the form of compensation to be paid by the State. (b)     Pecuniary damage – The applicant organisation, one of the rival leaderships of the Church, did not have a separate proprietary interest in buildings or other assets which were the property of parishes that adhered to it or the Church as a whole. The State action which had violated Article   9 had not encroached on property rights but had interfered with the free choice of the Church’s leadership. The claims of the applicant organisation for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage were therefore dismissed. As regards the individual applicants, the violation found concerned their freedom of religion and not their professional activities as employees of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Their claims were, therefore, also dismissed. (c)     Non-pecuniary damage – Having regard to the nature and scale of the violation of the applicant organisation’s rights under Article   9, the Court, deciding on an equitable basis, awarded the applicant organisation EUR   50,000 to be paid to Metropolitan Inokentiy, its leader at the relevant time, for the benefit of the religious community. Since the leadership directly affected by the violation of Article   9 had claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the religious community, there was no room for separate awards to the individual applicants. Article 46: The general measures to execute the Court’s principal judgment in this case should include amendments to the Religious Denominations Act 2002 to ensure that leadership conflicts in religious communities were left to be resolved by the religious community concerned and that disputes about the civil consequences of such conflicts were decided by the courts.   © 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