  []

METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA

and OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

Freedom of religion – violation Article 9

Right to an effective remedy – violation Article 13

In taking the view that the applicant church was not a new denomination and in making its recognition
depend on the will of a recognised ecclesiastical authority, the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, the
Government had failed to discharge their duty of neutrality and impartiality.
Not being recognised by the State, the church did not have the right of access to a court to defend
its rights and protect its property, given that only denominations recognised by the State enjoyed legal
protection.

In a judgment delivered on  December  in the case of Metropolitan Church of

Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, the European Court of Human Rights unani-
mously held that there had been a violation of Article  (freedom of religion) of the
European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article  (right to an
effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court also held unanimously that it was
not necessary to determine whether there had been violations of Article  (prohi-
bition of discrimination) read together with Article  and of Articles  (right to a
fair trial) and  (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.
Under Article  (just satisfaction), the Court awarded , euros (EUR) for
non-pecuniary damage and EUR , for costs and expenses.
This judgment is not final. Pursuant to Article , Section  of the Convention,
within three months from the date of the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the
case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Cham-
ber.

. Principal facts
The case concerns an application lodged by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia
(Mitropolia Basarabiei ¸si Exarhatul Plaiurilor) and eleven Moldovan nationals, Mr
Petru Paduraru, Mr Petru Buburuz, Mr Ioan Esanu, ¸ Mr Victor Rusu, Mr Anatol
Goncear, Mr Valeriu Cernei, Mr Gheorghe Ionita, Mr Valeriu Matciac, Mr Vlad
Cubreacov, Mr Anatol Telembici and Mr Alexandru Magola. Some of the appli-


  []

¸
cants live in Chisinau; the others live in various other Moldovan towns. The appli-
cants hold official positions in the applicant church.
The case concerns the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant
(Orthodox Christian) church. The refusal was upheld on  December  by a
final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. That court held that the question
of recognition of the applicant church could be resolved only by the Metropolitan
Church of Moldova, which had been recognised by the State and from which the
applicant church had split, and that any intervention in the conflict by the Moldovan
authorities could only make matters worse. In addition, it held that the applicants
and the other adherents of the applicant church could freely practise their religion
within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.

. Procedure of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
 June  and referred to the European Court of Human Rights on  November
. It was declared admissible on  June . A hearing was held on  October
.

. Summary of the judgment

Complaints
Relying on Article , the applicants complained of the Moldovan State’s refusal to
recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia as a church and alleged that un-
der the relevant domestic legislation a religious denomination could not be active
inside Moldovan territory unless it had first been recognised by the authorities.
The applicants further alleged a violation of Article , Section  and complained
that the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant church prevented
it from obtaining legal personality, so that it had been deprived of the right of
access to a court in order to obtain a ruling on any complaint relating to its rights,
and in particular its property rights. Relying on Article  read together with Article
, they alleged that, in the exercise of the rights derived from the freedom to
manifest one’s religion through observance, the applicant church was the victim of
discrimination based on religion since it was not entitled to judicial protection.
They further complained of a violation of Article  on account of the authorities’
refusal to recognise the applicant church, coupled with their stubborn determina-
tion to regard the applicants as members of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.
Lastly, the applicants alleged a violation of Article , asserting that in view of the

