tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39856330092553246622024-03-13T11:25:54.797+01:00BULGARISCHES RELIGIONSRECHTПраво и религия в България | Law and Religion in Bulgaria | ΔΙΚΑΙΟ ΚΑΙ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΑ ΣΤΗ ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΙΑ | Droit et Religion en Bulgariexn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-28783795515561474602015-02-27T16:50:00.000+01:002015-02-27T16:52:59.283+01:00Tackling intolerance and discrimination in Europe with a special focus on Christians<a href="http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21549&lang=en" target="_blank">Author(s): Parliamentary AssemblyOrigin - Assembly debate on 29 January 2015 (8th Sitting) (see Doc. 13660, report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, rapporteur: Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi). Text adopted by the Assembly on 29 January 2015 (8th Sitting).</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="docref" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1.8em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21549&lang=en" target="_blank">Resolution 2036 (2015) <span class="ProvisionalVersion">Provisional version</span></a></div>
<h1 style="background-color: white; color: #3166a4; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 2.8rem; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">
Tackling intolerance and discrimination in Europe with a special focus on Christians</h1>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 22px; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em 3em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #5c5c5c; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">1.</span> Intolerance and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief affect minority religious groups in Europe, but also people belonging to majority religious groups. Numerous acts of hostility, violence and vandalism have been recorded in recent years against Christians and their places of worship, but these acts are often overlooked by the national authorities. Expression of faith is sometimes unduly limited by national legislation and policies which do not allow the accommodation of religious beliefs and practices.</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 22px; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em 3em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #5c5c5c; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">2.</span> The reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and practices constitutes a pragmatic means of ensuring the effective and full enjoyment of freedom of religion. When it is applied in a spirit of tolerance, reasonable accommodation allows all religious groups to live in harmony in the respect and acceptance of their diversity.</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 22px; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em 3em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #5c5c5c; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">3.</span> The Parliamentary Assembly has recalled on several occasions the need to promote the peaceful coexistence of religious communities in the member States, notably in <a href="http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=18055&lang=en" style="color: #5b677d;">Resolution 1846 (2011)</a> on combating all forms of discrimination based on religion, <a href="http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=17973&lang=en" style="color: #5b677d;">Recommendation 1962 (2011)</a> on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue and <a href="http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=19695&lang=en" style="color: #5b677d;">Resolution 1928 (2013)</a> on safeguarding human rights in relation to religion and belief, and protecting religious communities from violence.</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 22px; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em 3em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #5c5c5c; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">4.</span> Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) and considered as one of the foundations of a democratic and pluralist society. Limitations to the exercise of freedom of religion must be restricted to those prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 22px; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em 3em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #5c5c5c; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">5.</span> The Assembly is convinced that measures should be taken to ensure the effective enjoyment of the protection of freedom of religion or belief afforded to every individual in Europe.</div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"></span><br />
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 22px; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em 3em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #5c5c5c; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.</span> The Assembly therefore calls on the Council of Europe member States to:<br />
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.1.</span> promote a culture of tolerance and “living together” based on the acceptance of religious pluralism and on the contribution of religions to a democratic and pluralist society, but also on the right of individuals not to adhere to any religion;</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.2.</span> promote reasonable accommodation within the principle of indirect discrimination so as to:<br />
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: transparent; border-radius: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(178, 178, 178); color: #161616; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.2.1.</span> ensure that the right of all individuals under their jurisdiction to freedom of religion and belief is respected, without impairing for anyone the other rights also guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights;</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: transparent; border-radius: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(178, 178, 178); color: #161616; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.2.2.</span> uphold freedom of conscience in the workplace while ensuring that access to services provided by law is maintained and the right of others to be free from discrimination is protected;</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: transparent; border-radius: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(178, 178, 178); color: #161616; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.2.3.</span> respect the right of parents to provide their children with an education in conformity with their religious or philosophical convictions, while guaranteeing the fundamental right of children to education in a critical and pluralistic manner in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, its protocols and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights;</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: transparent; border-radius: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(178, 178, 178); color: #161616; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.2.4.</span> enable Christians to fully participate in public life;</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.3.</span> protect the peaceful exercise of freedom of assembly, in particular through measures to ensure that counter-demonstrations do not affect the right to demonstrate, in line with the guidelines on freedom of assembly, of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR);</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.4.</span> uphold the fundamental right to freedom of expression by ensuring national legislation does not unduly limit religiously motivated speech;</div>
<br />
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.5.</span> publicly condemn the use of and incitement to violence, as well as all forms of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds;</div>
<br />
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.6.</span> combat and prevent cases of violence, discrimination and intolerance, in particular by carrying out effective investigations in order to avoid any sense of impunity among the perpetrators;</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.7.</span> encourage the media to avoid negative stereotyping and communicating prejudices against Christians, in the same way as for any other group;</div>
<br />
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.8.</span> ensure the protection of Christian minority communities and allow such communities to be registered as a religious organisation, and to establish and maintain meeting places and places of worship, regardless of the number of believers and without any undue administrative burden;</div>
<div class="Enum-Numbered" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 1.5rem; list-style-image: none !important; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Enum-style" style="background-color: #909090; border-radius: 2px; color: white; font-size: 1.2rem; letter-spacing: 2px; margin-right: 5px; padding: 2px 10px 1px 5px;">6.9.</span> guarantee the enjoyment by Christian minority communities of the right to publish and use religious literature.</div>
</div>
</div>
xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-49745265560250472012015-01-31T16:07:00.003+01:002015-01-31T16:08:04.023+01:00СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ НА П Р А В И Л Н И К ЗА СЪДОПРОИЗВОДСТВОТО НА ЦЪРКОВНИТЕ СЪДИЛИЩА НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ 2011 г.<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">П Р А В И Л Н И К ЗА СЪДОПРОИЗВОДСТВОТО НА ЦЪРКОВНИТЕ СЪДИЛИЩА НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ 2011 г.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Съдържание</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава І За ведомството, правата и длъжностите на църковните съдилища</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава ІІ За подведомствеността и началото на производството пред на църковните съдилища</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава ІІІ За привикване страните</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава ІV Ход на делото в съдебно заседание</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава VI Заседания на църковния съд</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава на VII Доказателства пред църковния съд</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава VIII Решение на делото</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава ІХ Св. Синод – Върховен духовен съд</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава Х Влезли в сила решения</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава XI Съдебни разноски</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Глава XII Преходни и заключителни разпоредби</span>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-37488926363203904932015-01-31T15:36:00.006+01:002015-01-31T15:52:00.514+01:00ПРАВИЛНИК на съдопроизводството на църковните съдилища на Българската православна църква <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>DE</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG" style="letter-spacing: 3.5pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><i><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></u></i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG" style="letter-spacing: 3.5pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><i><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Според решение на Св. Синод от заседанието му на 22.01.2015 г., прот. № 2 - пълен състав</span></u></i></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG" style="letter-spacing: 3.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG" style="letter-spacing: 3.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>ПРАВИЛНИК<o:p></o:p></u></b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>на съдопроизводството на </u></b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>църковните съдилища<o:p></o:p></u></b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>на Българската православна църква</u></b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style4">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Необнародван в Църковен вестник.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Липсва номерация на (чл.) 39, както текст в (чл.) 31 и др. абзаци или алинеи.</i></span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="Style4" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>I.
Подсъдност</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style4" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Въпросите
за подсъдност на делата за църковни провинения се решават съгласно чл. 184 от
УБПЦ (Устава на Българската православна църква). Делата по църковни спорове и
църковно-брачните дела са подсъдни на оня църковен съд, в района на който
ответната страна има своето постоянно местожителство; ако спорът се отнася до
недвижим имот - по местонахождението на имота.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style4" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style4" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>II.
Започване на съдебните дела и предварително следствие.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style4" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Обвинители,
тъжители, свидетели и вещи лица могат да бъдат само лица от православно
изповедание (чл. 193 УБПЦ), освен по изключение достопочтени тъжители по части
дела (6 правила на I Вс. събор).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">3.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Дела от
наказателен характер се подигат по решение на надлежния църковен съд въз основа
на служебни и частни съобщения или жалби. При случаи на неясноти или съмнение
относно престъплението или извора на узнаването му, съдът нарежда да се извърши
предварително следствие от духовно лице. Църковният съд в разпоредително
заседание, след изслушване на следствието, решава да се даде ход на съдебното
дело или път то да се прекрати.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">В
първия случай председателят на съда разпорежда да се връчи на обвинения препис
от обвинителния акт и списък на лицата, които се викат в съда, и да му се
предложи да даде, ако желае в двуседмичен срок възражения и да съобщи желае ли
да се викат свидетели и вещи лица - кои именно, като укаже обстоятелствата,
които ще установяват.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">4.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">По дела
от църковно-брачен характер за развенчавка молбата на просителя, придружена от
венчално свидетелство, трябва да съдържа: <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">а) име,
презиме и фамилно име, местожителство, гражданство, вероизповедание, занятие и
възраст на съпрузите; <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">б) колко
деца имат, иманата им, от кой пол и на каква възраст са; <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">в)
основанията и доказателствата на иска, включително и препис от решението на
гражданския съд за развод. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Към
молбата се прилагат втори екземпляр от нея и от посочените писмени
доказателства за връчване на противната страна. По разпореждане на председателя
на съда втория екземпляр с приложенията се изпраща на ответната страна със
съобщение в двуседмичен срок да даде възраженията, посочи доказателствата си.
След получаване на отговора, съдът насрочва делото за разглеждане с призоваване
на страните, свидетелите и вещите лица.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">5.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">По делата
от спорен характер писмената молба на лица трябва да съдържа: а) име, презиме и
фамилно име, местожителство; изложение на обстоятелствата, откакто произтича
искът; в) какво точно се иска; г) доказателства на иска.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Към
исковата молба се прилагат нужното число преписи от нея и приложенията й за
връчване на противната страна.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">По
разпореждане на председателя на съда, на ответниците се изпращат вторите
екземпляри със съобщение - в едномесечен срок да направят писмено възражение с
насрочване доказателствата и насрещните си искове.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">6.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Призоваването
на страните, свидетелите и вещите лица става с призовки. В случай на неизвестно
местожителство, подсъдимият или ответникът се призовава чрез "Църковен
вестник".<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Страните
могат да прегледат в канцеларията на съда делата и да извличат от тях нужната
им информация под надзора на определено лице.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>III.</b></span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><b><span lang="BG">Ход на
делата </span></b></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>в</b></span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><b><span lang="BG">съдебно
заседание.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">7.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Заседанията
на съда са публични, но на тях могат да се явяват като слушатели само лица от православно
изповедание.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">В
изключителни случаи по решение на съда с оглед на морала, обществения ред и
интереса на Църквата, делата се разглеждат при затворени врата, като в такъв
случай се пущат до трима сродници или близки на страните, ако последните поискат
това.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">8.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Делата на
подсъдими или ответници, надлежно призовани, които без уважителна причина не се
явят, се разглеждат в тяхно отсъствие.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Ако
не се явят и двете редовно призовани страни, делото се прекратява. Неявяването
на някоя от страните, която е редовно призована, не е пречка за разглеждане на
делото.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Тия
разпореждания се отбелязват в призовките на страните.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">При
неявяване на страните по уважителни причини делото се отлага; делата се отлагат
и когато не се явят някои свидетели, чиито показания имат значение за решаване
на делото.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">10.
Съдията се отстранява сам или по искане на една отстраните, ако в страна по
делото или е съпруг, или роднина на</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">
някоя отстраните по права линия без ограничение, по сребърна линия до четвърта
степен или по сватовство до трета степен.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Той
се отстранява и ако е взел участие при издаване на обжалваното решение, или ако
е бил свидетел или вещо лице по делото, както и ако е заинтересован от изхода
на делото или се намира със страната в особени отношения, които будят
основателно съмнение в неговата безпристрастност.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Съдът
решава въпроса за отстраняването с участие от отвеждания съдия.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">11.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">След
откриване на съдебното заседание: а) по наказателни и дисциплинарни дела се
прочита обвинителния акт; б) по църковно-брачни и спорни дела съдът се старае
да помири страните и ако намери, че помирението е възможно, може да отложи
разглеждането на делото за до 6 месеца.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">12.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Съдебното
следствие се извършва от съда поначало в седалището на последния.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">13.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Свидетелите
и вещите лица се изпитват поначало без клетва и само по изключение - под
клетва, ако сам съдът намери това за нужно или страните поискат това (Мат.
5:33-37; Яков 5:12, Василий Вел. 29, 81, 82).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">14.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Съдът
може да събира и сам доказателства за установяване на материалната истина.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">15.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Съдебното
заседание се завършва с прение на участващите в делото страни по същество на
разглежданите и проверени доказателства и с изслушване последната дума на
подсъдимия или на страните.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style12">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style12" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>IV.
Решение на делото.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">16.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">След
приключване на съдебното дирене съдът, без участие на други лица, обсъжда
делото според вътрешното си убеждение, въз основа на каноните и на УБПЦ: по
наказателните и дисциплинарните дела - невинността или вината на подсъдимия,
наказанието и другите последици от престъплението или простъпката по спорни,
църковно-брачни и административни дела -основателността или доказаността на
иска или жалбата и постановява решение.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">17.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Резолюцията
по делото се обявява веднага в заседателната зала, освен по сложни дела - и
по-късно, най-вече една седмица след съдебното заседание.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">В
решението на съда се излагат най-късно две седмици от обявата на резолюцията и
мотивите, въз основа на които то е постановено.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">18.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Решенията
на Епархийския църковен съд по спорни дела от материален характер до 50 лв. и
по дела от църковно-наказателен или дисциплинарен характер, по които е наложено
наказание "бележка", "мъмрене" или глоба от 30 лв. са
окончателни.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">19.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">За всяко
съдебно заседание се води и съставя в седемдневен срок протокол от секретаря,
който отбелязва присъствалите лица, предмета на разглежданото дело и всички
станали по него действия (бележки, възражения и пр.), както и издадените от
съда постановления с мотивите им. Протоколът се подписва от членовете на съда и
секретаря.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Ако
в протокола са допуснати грешки или опущения, страните по делото могат с
писмена молба в седемдневен срок от изготвянето му да поискат от съда
надлежните поправки или добавки.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">20.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Решенията
на епархийските съдилища подлежат на утвърждение от епархийския архиерей. По
възникнали пререкания се произнася с окончателно решение Св. Синод в намален
състав (чл. 185 УБПЦ).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">21.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Решението
на първоинстанционния съд, влязло в сила, с което се налага наказание
"низвержение", преди да се приведе в изпълнение, се представя на Св.
Синод за утвърждение или за заменяне с по-леко наказание.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style12" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style12" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>V.
Апелативно обжалване на решенията и определенията.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">22.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Против
решенията на първоинстанционния църковен съд страните имат право да подават
въззивна (апелативна) писмена жалба чрез съда, който е произнесъл решението, в
двуседмичен срок от произнасяне на резолюцията или от съобщението му на
страните, когато е задочно или от обнародването му в "Църковен
вестник", когато е неизвестно местожителството на страните, като в
последния случай срока за обжалване е едномесечен.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">В
жалбата трябва да е означено:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">съда, до
който се отправя;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">името и
адреса на страната, която я подава;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">3)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">срещу
какво от решението се подава жалбата, на какво основание и с какви
доказателства и какво се иска с жалбата;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">4)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">подпис на
въззивника.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Към
жалбата се прилагат толкова преписи от нея и от приложенията, колкото са
лицата, против които се подава.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Без
спазване на горните условия и ако не са приложени</span></span><span class="FontStyle17"><span lang="BG"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style6" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">съдебните
мита и берии, жалбата се оставя без движение. Ако в двуседмичен срок от
съобщението, страната не отстрани допуснатите нередовности, въззивната жалба се
връща. Жалбата се връща и когато е просрочена.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">23.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Правото
на въззив може да бъде възстановено, ако просрочването е произлязло по вина на
длъжностното лице, чрез което жалбата е изпратена или по закъснение по пътя,
поради особени непредвидени обстоятелства, или поради погрешно определяне на
срока от съда.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Молбата
за възстановяване правото на въззив, заедно с подписи от нея за противната
страна, се подава до съда, който е постановил решението, в двуседмичен срок от
деня, в който въззивната жалба е върната или е съобщено, че срокът е изтекъл.
Тя се разглежда от същия съд, който ако възстанови правото на въззив назначава
нов срок не по-дълъг от въззивния. Тоя срок започва да тече от деня на
съобщението за възстановяване на срока.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Първоинстанционният
съд може да подаде възражения или обяснения с посочване на доказателствата в
двуседмичен срок от получаване на препис от молбата.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>VI.</b>
</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><b><span lang="BG">Разглеждане
делата в апелативната инстанция</span></b></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">24.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">След
постъпване на делото в апелативната инстанция, последното и разпоредително
заседание се произнася за допускане на доказателства на страните и насрочва
делото.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">25.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Посочените
сведения или вещи лица, неразпитани в първата инстанция, се допускат само, ако
съдът признае, че техните показания имат съществено значение за делото.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Разпитаните
в първата инстанция свидетели и вещи лица се допускат вторичен до разпит, ако
съдът намери това за необходимо.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Свидетелите
и вещите лица се разпитват по делегация от първоинстанционния съд.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Освен
доказателствата, посочени във въззивната жалба и във възраженията, нови
доказателства не се допускат.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">26.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Апелативната
инстанция съди само за деяния или неща, които са били предмет на делото в
първоинстанционния съд.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Апелативният
съд може да отмени, увеличи или намали наказанието, определено от
първоинстанционния съд, като изложи в решението основанието за това.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style2" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style10" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG">VII.</span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span></b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>Части жалби или молби срещу определенията на
първоинстанционния съд.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">27.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Частни
жалби могат да се подават, докато още не е постановено решение, срещу
определенията на първоинстанционния съд пред по-горния съд в следните случаи:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">по
възбуден процес за пререкание;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">по
определение подсъдността на делото, ако отводът е уважен;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">3)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">по
признаване или отказване правото на трето лице да вземе участие в делото;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">4)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">по
отстраняване на съдия, когато съдът не е уважил отвода;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">5)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">по
неприемане искове, молби или отказване да се възстанови правото на въззив;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">6)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато е
спряно производството;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">7)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато е
прекратено делото по неявяване на страните.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">28.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Жалбите
срещу определенията се подават в седемдневен срок, откак се обяви определението
или откак се съобщи на страната, ако тя е отсъствала. Тия жалби не спират
изпълнението на определението и разглеждането на делото, освен в случаите по
т.т. 1 и 7 на чл. 27 или когато това се признае за необходимо от апелативната
инстанция.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Жалбите
срещу определенията се подават чрез съда, който ги е постановил, придружени с
толкова преписи от тях и от приложените книжа, колкото страни засягат, за
връчване на страните. Към жалбите се прилагат преписи от обжалваното
определение само, когато разглеждането на делото не е спряно.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Препис
от жалбата веднага след приемането й се изпраща на противната страна, която в
седемдневен срок от получаването може да даде възражения, след което съдът
изпраща в по-горния съд частната жалба и подадените срещу нея възражения като
дава, ако счете за нужно, обяснения от своя страна.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">29.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Апелативната
инстанция разглежда частните жалби в едномесечен срок от постъпването им.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style10" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style10" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG">VIII.</span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span></b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>Отмяна на решенията и определенията.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">30.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Жалби и
молби за отмяна на решенията на първоинстанционния съд се подават:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">за
касация на решението;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">за
преглед на решението<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">3).........................................<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">31.....................................................<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">всички
окончателни решения на първоинстанционния съд<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">неокончателни
решения на първоинстанционния съд, когато бъдат обжалвани по касационен ред.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Когато
една от участващите в делото страни е обжалвала решението по касационен ред, а
другата по апелативен ред, второинстанционния съд разглежда делото на едното и
другото основание и го решава окончателно. В тоя случай връщане на делото за
ново разглеждане от първоинстанционния съд не става, освен ако съдът намери
това за нужно за правилното решаване на делото.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">32.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Касационната
жалба и възраженията по тях се подават в сроковете и по реда, установени за
подаване жалби срещу неокончателните решения и определения (чл. 22 и чл. 23).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Допълнителни
касационни жалби могат да се подават писмено до откриване на първото по делото
заседание.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Касационните
жалби срещу решения на първоинстанционния съд за ново разглеждане на делото се
допускат: 1) когато е нарушен или неправилно изтълкуван канонът или законът; 2)
когато са нарушени съществени съдопроизводствени норми, чието неспазване е
могло да има влияние върху самото решение; когато са нарушени пределите на
ведомството или властта, които УБПЦ или каноните предоставят на църковния съд;
4) когато в едно и също решение се съдържат разпореждания, които си
противоречат; 5) когато са изопачени данните или фактите по делото; 6) когато
неправилно е изтълкуван канонът или УБПЦ при определяне на престъпното деяние.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">33.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Касационните
жалби срещу окончателни определения се допускат: 1) когато с определението е
възстановено или е отказано правото за подаване касационна жалба срещу
окончателно решение; 2) когато с определението се прегражда по-нататъшно
развитие на делото по същество.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">34.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Разглеждането
и решаването на делото става по общия ред без призоваване на страните.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">35.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Когато се
отмени обжалваното решение, касационният съд връща делото за ново разглеждане
от съда, който е постановил решението при друг състав или от друг съд от равна
степен при спазване на чл. 31 и 32.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">36.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Съдът, на
който е пратено делото, е длъжен да се подчини на разясненията на касационния
съд.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style7">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG">IX.</span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span></b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>Преглед и отмяна на влезли в сила решения.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">37.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">По молба
на участвалите в делото страни или на техни близки родственици се допуска
отмяна на влезлите в сила решения:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато са
издадени противоречащи едно на друго решения, влезли в сила между същите
страни, в същото им качество, по същия предмет и на едно и също основание;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато се
открият нови обстоятелства или нови писмени доказателства, които доказват
невинността на осъдения или се открият нови обстоятелства, които имат
съществено значение за спорното или административно-съдебно дело;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">3)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато се
установи подлог или подправка в документите или лъжливост в показанията, върху
които е основано решението;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">4)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато се
докажат по съдебен ред користни или други престъпни действия на съдиите във
връзка с решаване на делото;<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">5)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато
страната, вследствие нарушаване на съответните правила, е била лишена от
възможност да участва в делото или когато не е могла да се яви лично по причина
на препятствие, което не е могла да отстрани.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">При
подаване молба за отмяна на решението се прилагат правилата, предвидени по чл.
22, ал. II и III от настоящия Правилник.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">38.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">В същите
срокове могат да подават молба за отмяна и трети лица, не участвали в делото и
без да са близка родственици на страните, когато влязлото в сила решение
нарушава техните права.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style5" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Епархийският
архиерей може....................................................<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style6" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">преглед
на реда на наздора на влязло в сила решение, когато същото е постановено при
съществено нарушение на канони или на закона.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">40.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Представления
или молби за преглед и отмяна се подават в касационния съд, който след
приемането им, се удостоверява предварително чрез проверяване по надлежния ред,
в действителността на обстоятелствата, въз основа на които се иска преглед на
решението и след това, ако признае молбата за основателна, отменява влязлото в
сила решение и връща делото за ново разглеждане.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG">X.</span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span></b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>Влезли в сила решения.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">41.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Решението
влиза в законна сила:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">1)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато е
постановено от първоинстанционния съд
с утвърждение от епархийския архиерей (чл.185.УБПЦ);<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style8" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">2)</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">когато в
установения срок не са подадени - въззивни или</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">касационни
жалби; 3) когато подадената апелативна или касационна жалба е била оставена без
последствие.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">42.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Решението
на църковните съдилища за "низвержение", "отлъчване" от
Църквата или "анатема", преди да се приведат в изпълнение, се
представят на Св. Синод, който ги представя или замества с по-леки наказания
(чл. 194 от УБПЦ).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">43.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Правото
на милост принадлежи на Св. Синод и се упражнява по начина, определен от
каноните (Анкара 5).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG">XI.</span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span></b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>Съдебни разноски.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">44.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Св. Синод
определя размера на съдебните и канцеларски мито, барий и църковни марки по
делото.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style7" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG">XII.</span></span><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"> </span></span></b><span class="FontStyle16"><span lang="BG"><b>Особени наредби.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">45.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Църковните
съдилища във всички случаи, непредвидени в настоящия правилник и УБПЦ, в
съдопроизводството се ръководят от каноните на св. Църква, от общата практика
на Православните църкви и от общите начала на гражданското, наказателното и
административното правосъдие на светските съдилища в съобразност с духа на
каноническото право на Православната църква.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">46.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">На
влезлите в законна сила присъди и решения на църковния съд всички членове на
Църквата дължат подчинение (Халкидон 8).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">47.</span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"> </span></span><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG">Настоящият
Правилник влиза в сила от деня на одобрението му от Св. Синод в пълен състав и
отменява всички наредби, които му противоречат.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style3" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="FontStyle14"><span lang="BG"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="Style2" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<!--EndFragment-->xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-50169031085881153922015-01-27T08:01:00.000+01:002015-01-31T15:29:40.039+01:00Съдържание на Устава на Българската православна църква - Българска патриаршия<h1 align="center" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.de/2011/10/blog-post.html" name="_Toc408407332"><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;">УСТАВ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНАЦЪРКВА –</span></a><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<h1 align="center" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Toc408407333"><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;">БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ</span></a><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;">Приет от VI Църковно-народен събор на 11 декември 2008 г., <br />
в Рилската света обител, публикуван в „Църковен вестник”, <br />
Извънреден брой, 09.01.2009 г.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;">Съдържание</span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span lang="BG" style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoToc1" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: right 457.9pt;">
<!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Verdana;text-transform:
none;mso-ansi-language:DE'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>TOC \o "1-5" \n \h \z \u <span
style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-family: Verdana; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ЧАСТ ПЪРВА УСТРОЙСТВО</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава първа ОСНОВНИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава втора ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪБОР</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪБОР</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ИЗБОР НА ЧЛЕНОВЕ НА ЦЪРКОВНИЯ СЪБОР</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ И ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА ЦЪРКОВНИЯ СЪБОР</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава трета АРХИЕРЕЙСКИ СЪБОР</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава четвърта БЪЛГАРСКИ ПАТРИАРХ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І БЪЛГАРСКИ ПАТРИАРХ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ИЗБОР НА БЪЛГАРСКИ ПАТРИАРХ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА БЪЛГАРСКИЯ ПАТРИАРХ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава пета СВЕТИ СИНОД</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ОБЩИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД В ПЪЛЕН СЪСТАВ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД В НАМАЛЕН СЪСТАВ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІV ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел V АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава шеста ВЪРХОВЕН ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪВЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ВЪРХОВЕН ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪВЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ И ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА ВЪРХОВНИЯ ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪВЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава седма ЕПАРХИЙСКИ МИТРОПОЛИТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ЕПАРХИЙСКИ МИТРОПОЛИТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ИЗБИРАНЕ НА ЕПАРХИЙСКИ МИТРОПОЛИТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА ЕПАРХИЙСКИЯ МИТРОПОЛИТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІV АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ НА МИТРОПОЛИЯТА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава осма ЕПАРХИЙСКИ ИЗБИРАТЕЛИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава девета ЕПАРХИЙСКИ СЪВЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ЕПАРХИЙСКИ СЪВЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ И ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА ЕПАРХИЙСКИЯ СЪВЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава десета АРХИЕРЕЙСКИ НАМЕСТНИЦИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава единадесета ЕНОРИИ И СВЕЩЕНОСЛУЖИТЕЛИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ЕНОРИИ И СВЕЩЕНОСЛУЖИТЕЛИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА СВЕЩЕНОСЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава дванадесета ЦЪРКВА И ЦЪРКОВНО НАСТОЯТЕЛСТВО</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ЦЪРКВА И ЦЪРКОВНО НАСТОЯТЕЛСТВО</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА ЦЪРКОВНИТЕ НАСТОЯТЕЛСТВА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава тринадесета МАНАСТИРИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І МАНАСТИРИ И МОНАСИ/МОНАХИНИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА МАНАСТИРСКОТО УПРАВЛЕНИЕ –</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">МАНАСТИРСКИ СЪБОР И ИГУМЕН</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ЧАСТ ВТОРА ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪД</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава първа ОБЩИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І УСТРОЙСТВО</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПОДВЕДОМСТВЕНОСТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава втора ЦЪРКОВНО-СЪДЕБНИ ДЕЛА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ЦЪРКОВНО-НАКАЗАТЕЛНИ ДЕЛА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">А. Църковни провинения</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Б. Църковни наказания</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">В. Особени правила:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ЦЪРКОВНО-ИМУЩЕСТВЕНИ СПОРОВЕ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ ЦЪРКОВНО-АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ДЕЛА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ЧАСТ ТРЕТА ПООЩРЕНИЯ, ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНА И ИМУЩЕСТВЕНА ОТГОВОРНОСТ НА СЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ В БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА – БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава първа ПООЩРЕНИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава втора ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНА ОТГОВОРНОСТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ОБЩА РАЗПОРЕДБА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНИ ПРОСТЪПКИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНИ НАКАЗАНИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІV ПРАВИЛА ЗА НАЛАГАНЕ НА ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНИ НАКАЗАНИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава трета ИМУЩЕСТВЕНА ОТГОВОРНОСТ НА СЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ В</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА – БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ЧАСТ ЧЕТВЪРТА ОСОБЕНИ ПРАВИЛА ОТНОСНО ПРАВНОТО ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ НА СЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ В БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА – БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ЧАСТ ПЕТА ИЗДРЪЖКА НА ЦЪРКВАТА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава първа ПРИХОДИ И РАЗХОДИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І ПРИХОДИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ РАЗХОДИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава втора БЮДЖЕТ, КОНТРОЛ И ОТЧЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел І БЮДЖЕТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІ ПРАВИЛА ЗА ОСИГУРЯВАНЕ НА ПРИХОДНАТА ЧАСТ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">НА БЮДЖЕТА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Раздел ІІІ КОНТРОЛ И ОТЧЕТИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава трета ЕДИНЕН СИНОДАЛЕН РЕГИСТЪР НА ИМОТИТЕ,</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">СОБСТВЕНОСТ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА – БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ, МИТРОПОЛИИТЕ, ЦЪРКВИТЕ И МАНАСТИРИТЕ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Глава шеста ЗНАМЕ И ПЕЧАТИ</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ДОПЪЛНИТЕЛНА РАЗПОРЕДБА</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoToc2">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">ПРЕХОДНИ И ЗАКЛЮЧИТЕЛНИ РАЗПОРЕДБИ</span></span></div>
xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-13281587108293194732011-10-07T09:32:00.000+02:002011-10-07T09:32:08.525+02:00symbolae ecclesiasticae bulgaricae<div style="margin: 0px;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2011/10/symbolae-ecclesiasticae-bulgaricae.html" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://download.e-bookshelf.de/file/357835/width/160/height/0/sig/ca319bc8da54e1cdf714842a48d0a5e4" width="226" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Im vergangenen Monat erschien die Festschrift anlässlich des 80. Jubiläums von Professor Hans-Dieter Döpmann. Herausgeber des Buches sind Prof. Helmut Schaller (Marburg) und Prof. R. Zlatanova (Heidelberg). Das Buch trägt den Titel:</span></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> <a href="http://www.kubon-sagner.de/opac.html?record=8017e">Symbolae Ecclesiasticae Bulgaricae. Vorträge anlässlich des 80. Geburtstages von Hans-Dieter Döpmann.</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Es enthält einen Beitrag in Deutscher Sprache, die staatskirchenrechtliche Problematik in Bulgarien behandelt:</span></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">H. P. Berov, Bulgarische Rechtsverhältnisse zwischen Staat und Kirche nach der Lehre von Stefan Cankov, - in: H. Schaler/R. Zlatanova (Hrsg.) Symbolae Ecclesiasticae Bulgaricae. Vorträge anlässlich des 80. Geburtstag von Hans-Dieter Döpmann, Otto Sagner Verlag München-Berlin 2011, S. 46- 60.</span></div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-53746788189983374362011-10-07T09:28:00.000+02:002011-10-07T09:28:35.229+02:00КРАТКИ УПЪТВАНИЯ ЗА ВОДЕНЕТО НА ЦЪРКОВНО-НАКАЗАТЕЛНИ ДЕЛА ПРЕД ЦЪРКОВНИТЕ СЪДИЛИЩА<em>Приети на Заседание на Св. Синод от 12.04.2011 г., прот. № 13 - пълен състав</em><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>I. С Ъ Д</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Конструира се съдът с председател, членове и секретар и заема съответните места в съдебната зала. Делата се намират при председателя, който докладва делата по реда си.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>II. ПРОЦЕДУРА ПРИ РАЗГЛЕЖДАНЕ НА ДЕЛАТА.</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят обявява членове на съда и кое дело подлежи на разглеждане. Съобщава на съда, че делото е редовно т.е. че призовките са връчени и ако има някакво предварително искане от подсъдимия се преценява от съда да се има или не предвид.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Секретарят отбелязва всички констатации по делото, за да ги впише впоследствие в протокола.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят поканва да влезе подсъдимия чрез поставено лице, прочита му се обвинителния протоколи се запитва получил ли го е. След което съдът се съвещава и приема или не искането на подсъдимия.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят съобщава решението на съда на лицето.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Секретарят записва мотивите за отказа или приемането на искането и го вписва в протокола.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят снема самоличността на подсъдимия - години, семейно положение, служба, съден или не и пр. След приключване на четенето на обвинението отново се запитва обвиняемия има ли да каже нещо по така изнесеното в протокола.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Секретарят записва това, което ще каже обвиняемия. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят - ако има свидетели поканват се да се явят в заседателната зала, за да бъдат подведени под клетва и снета самоличността им.; ако свидетелите са повече в залата остава само един, другите излизат и се започва разпита на лицето, освен ако съдът не разпореди друго.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Секретарят записва данните по самоличността и показанията на свидетелите по отделно за всеки.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят след разпитването на първия свидетел винаги дава думата на подсъдимия за въпроси към свидетеля, както и на членовете на съда за въпроси по показанията. Извиква се втория свидетел, като разпитвания остава на разположение извън залата, освен ако съдът не разпореди друго; процедурата по разпита продължава до като бъде разпитан и последния.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">В залата остава само подсъдимият, на когото отново се дава думата за пояснение по изнесеното обвинение от страна на съда. Това е последната дума на обвиняемия. Изслушва се добре без прекъсване и пр.; той има право да говори колкото желае, освен ако се държи непочтително.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Секретарят записва точно всичко, каквото каже обвиняемия, като впоследствие съставя протокола.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят запитва подсъдимия когато завърши изложението си, дали има още нещо да каже т.е. най-главното - признава ли се за виновен или не и какво е неговото желание да бъде оправдан или осъден, но снизходително. След тия въпроси и отговори, поканва се подсъдимия да излезе и съда започва да се съвещава, за да произнесе присъдата.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Първо се поканва най-младшия да каже каква присъда смята той трябва да се даде на подсъдимия при така изнесените данни по делото, следват останалите членове по старшинство и най-после идва мнението на председателя. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">При равногласие - гласа на Председателя надделява, когато съдът е разделен в решението си.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">След като съда вземе решението си, поканва подсъдимия в залата и със ставане на крака от всички, му се прочита присъдата така:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">СЪДЪТ СЪБРАН НА ДНЕШНОТО ЗАСЕДАНИЕ,КАТО ИЗСЛУША ВАС ПОДСЪДИМИЯ ПОКАЗАНИЯТА НА СВИДЕТЕЛИТЕ, ПИСМЕНИТЕ ДАННИ ПО ДЕЛОТО И КАТО ВЗЕ ПОД ВНИМАНИЕ ПОВЕЛЕНИЯТА НА УСТАВА НА ЦЪРКВАТА ЗА ДОКАЗАНИ ОБВИНЕНИЯ /ИЗБРОЯВАТ СЕ/ РЕШИ ДА ВИ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">НАЛОЖИ СЪГЛАСНО чл....., т..... ОТ УСТАВА НА БПЦ -БП</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">НАКАЗАНИЕ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">което секретарязаписва точно.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Председателят отправя към осъдения или оправдания въпрос -доволни ли сте от присъдата или не. Ако подсъдимият каже, че е доволен, присъдата влиза веднага в сила, което секретаря записва. Ако каже, че не е доволен, съобщава му се, че в 14 дневен срок, след като получи препис от решението на съда има право да го обжалва пред по- върховната инстанция.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Секретарят в едноседмичен срок изготвя протокола с данните за самоличността на подсъдимия, свидетелите и показанията дадени в съда от същите. Въз основа на тия данни в същия срок изготвя решението на съда, което в съкратена форма-резолюция или пък изцяло се връчва срещу подпис, с право да даде писмени възражения - обжалване на присъдата в срок от 14 дни. Ако такива постъпят от осъдения те се прикрепят към делото и се изпращат по нататък за разглеждане от по- висшата инстанция. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Възражението трябва да бъде дадено в срок и да бъде писано на официален език и да е само в духа на обвинението. В противен случай възражението може да се отхвърли.</span>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-12429881785557849212011-10-06T20:20:00.004+02:002011-10-06T20:25:44.565+02:00Symbolae Ecclesiasticae Bulgaricae<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2011/10/symbolae-ecclesiasticae-bulgaricae.html" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://download.e-bookshelf.de/file/357835/width/160/height/0/sig/ca319bc8da54e1cdf714842a48d0a5e4" width="226" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Im vergangenen Monat erschien die Festschrift anlässlich des 80. Jubiläums von Professor Hans-Dieter Döpmann. Herausgeber des Buches sind Prof. Helmut Schaller (Marburg) und Prof. R. Zlatanova (Heidelberg). Das Buch trägt den Titel:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> <a href="http://www.kubon-sagner.de/opac.html?record=8017e">Symbolae Ecclesiasticae Bulgaricae. Vorträge anlässlich des 80. Geburtstages von Hans-Dieter Döpmann.</a></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Es enthält einen Beitrag in Deutscher Sprache, die staatskirchenrechtliche Problematik in Bulgarien behandelt:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">H. P. Berov, Bulgarische Rechtsverhältnisse zwischen Staat und Kirche nach der Lehre von Stefan Cankov, - in: H. Schaler/R. Zlatanova (Hrsg.) Symbolae Ecclesiasticae Bulgaricae. Vorträge anlässlich des 80. Geburtstag von Hans-Dieter Döpmann, Otto Sagner Verlag München-Berlin 2011, S. 46- 60.</span></div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-45818195625853017252011-10-06T17:02:00.008+02:002014-12-28T07:07:45.368+01:00П Р А В И Л Н И К ЗА СЪДОПРОИЗВОДСТВОТО НА ЦЪРКОВНИТЕ СЪДИЛИЩА НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i><u><br />
</u></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i>Приет на Заседание на Св. Синод от 12.04.2011 г., прот. № 13 - пълен състав.</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i><b><u>Необнародван в Църковен вестник</u></b><br />
</i></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава І<br />
За ведомството, правата и длъжностите на църковните съдилища.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.1. Този правилник урежда производствените правила за църковните спорове, които са предвидени в Устава на БПЦ.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.2. В пределите на своите правомощия църковните съдилища са независими. Членовете на църковните съдилища декларират, че ще действат безпристрастно по делото.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.3. Църковните съдилища са длъжни да решават подведомствените си дела единствено съгласно УБПЦ – БП, с приетите от Православната църква правила и законоположения и с издадените за определени случаи окръжни писма на Св. Синод. Църковните съдилища не прилагат други закони и правила. Непредвидените случаи и обстоятелства се решават по приетите от други православни църкви практика и по справедливост.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.4. При липса на правила в този правилник или в Устава на БПЦ съдилищата прилагат правила, които са подходящи за разглеждане и решаване на делото, като предоставят на страните равна възможност да изложат и защитят становищата си по делото.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.5. Църковните съдилища не могат да отказват разрешаването на подведомствените им дела, под предлог, че няма църковни правила и предписания, или че те са непълни, неясни, или противоречиви. Нарушаването на това правило се счита за отказ на духовно правосъдие, за който членовете на съда са отговорни пред Св. Синод на БПЦ - БП.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.6. Всеки църковен съд решава сам, дали е в правомощията му да го разглежда повдигнатия пред него спор, независимо от обстоятелството, като определението на съда по този въпрос може да бъде обжалвано пред по-горно църковно съдилище.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.7. Спор за подсъдност между църковни съдилища се разрешава от Св. Синод на БПЦ – БП.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.8. Срокът за обжалване на определението за подведомственост е 7 дена от получаването на определението. Когато в определения седемдневен срок определението не се обжалва, надлежното църковно съдилище пристъпва отново към разглеждане на делото, след като призове страните по установения ред.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.9. Молбата за обжалване се подава в същото съдилище, където се е повдигнал спора за подведомственост.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.10. Сроковете се броят по дни, като се изчисляват от деня, следващ този от който започва да тече срока, и изтичат в края на съответния ден.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.11. За да извършват лично действия по делото, лицата трябва да са правоспособни и дееспособни, съгласно изискванията на законодателството на Република България. При липса на дееспособност се назначава за представител духовно лице, при възможност авторитет по църковно право, или адвокат, когато това е допустимо, съгласно този правилник.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава ІІ</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>За подведомствеността и началото на производството пред на църковните съдилища.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.12. Производствата пред църковните съдилища започват с внасянето на сезиращ документ: молба, обвинителен протокол или жалба, които се предявяват пред съда, в областта на който вносителят има постоянен адрес на местожителство или месторабота.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.13. За дела и спорове, породени от действие на лице или лица от друга епархия, документът се внася пред оня църковен съд, в областта на който е извършено деянието, което според църковните правила или УБПЦ – БП, подлежи на духовно наказание.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.14. Местожителството на монасите/монахините от една обител е самата тая обител, в която са на послушание, освен ако някой от тия монаси/монахини е настанен в друга известна местност, като манастирски епитроп или в друго качество. В такъв случай за обикновено местожителство на тоя монах/монахиня се счита тая местност.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 15. Документите се предявяват писмено и подписани от подаващия. Само когато има спешност съдилищата може да се сезират устно. Устните искания се записват в нарочно за това заведена книга и се подписват от самия подател, след като се прочете на подателя заявената от него жалба.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 16. Молбата, обвинителният протокол или жалбата съдържат пълно описание на обстоятелствата, на които се основават, както и на доказателствата, като се прилагат всички писмени доказателства и се посочват имената на свидетелите и адреси за призоваването им.<br />
Посочва се и адрес за съобщения на двете страни. Молба или жалба без адрес за съобщения на молителя, съответно жалбоподателя, не се докладват на съда за разглеждане.<br />
Молбата, обвинителният протокол или жалбата съдържат искането, съответно предложението за наказание.<br />
За насрещната страна се прилага копие от молбата, обвинителния протокол или жалбата с доказателствата за насрещната стана.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 17. От устното искане се приготвят преписи за противната страна, както толкова преписи, колкото е броят на подателите.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.18. След като жалбата, писмена или устна, постъпи в канцеларията на църковния съд, председателят на съда, или упълномощено от него лице, нарежда да се изпратят нужните преписи, както от жалбата, така и от другите доказателства, ако има такива, на насрещната страна.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.19. Председателят изпраща копието на насрещната страна, като и дава разумен срок да вземе писмено становище, ако желае.<br />
Становището съдържа пълно описание на обстоятелствата, на които се основава защитата, както и на доказателствата, като се прилагат всички писмени доказателства и се посочват имената на свидетелите и адреси за призоваването им.<br />
При мотивирано искане председателят може да удължи срока за становище.<br />
Ако в описания по-горе срок ответната страна не отговори писмено, делото се разглежда и без такъв писмен отговор.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 20. Ако в документа не е посочен адрес за призоваване, тя се оставя без движение, а на подателя се съобщава с призовка, че ако в разстояние от 15 дни от деня на връчване на призовката, той не посочи местожителството на насрещната страна, жалбата му няма да се разгледа, и той може да си я вземе обратно, заедно с всички други книжа, ако има такива. Вносителят не губи правото си да се отнесе повторно до съда по установения ред.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава ІІІ<br />
За привикване страните.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 21. Когато в канцеларията на църковния съд се определи деня за разглеждане на делото, изпращат се призовки на страните, според адресите за призоваване, в които призовки се отбелязва кои лица се викат в съда, по кое искане, за какво се викат, на кое място се викат, в кой ден и час да се явят.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 22. Призовката трябва да бъде подписана от секретаря на църковния съд и да бъде/е подпечатана с печата на епархийския духовен съвет.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 23. Призовката се връчва лично на страните. В тяхно отсъствие могат да се връчат на близки лица или техни колеги по месторабота, които следва да уведомят страните за изпратените им призовки.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 24. Призовката се състои от два екземпляра. При предаването й на единия се отбелязва, кога е предадена, а другият екземпляр се подписва от получателя, като в същата се отбелязва кога я е приел, и се връща в канцеларията на епархийския съвет. Ако лицето, което приема призовка откаже да я подпише, това се отбелязва и в двата екземпляра на призовката, като се отбелязва кога и на кого е връчена и защо не е приета.<br />
При всички случаи страните, свидетелите или вещите лица се считат призовани, когато съдът реши, че е положил всички разумни усилия за да ги намери.<br />
Неявяването на страна, свидетел или вещо лице не е пречка за разглеждането или разрешаването на делото, освен когато съдът реши да отложи заседанието за друг ден или за друг час същия ден.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 25. Насрещната страна, на която местожителството не е показано от жалбоподателя, и се намира извън страната, се призовава чрез обнародване в “Църковен вестник” в три броя под ред. Ако след изтичането на срока от последното обнародване в „Църковен вестник” ответната страна не се яви, църковният съд разглежда делото и без негово присъствие. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 26. Един екземпляр от писмения отговор, заедно с приложените книжа, ако има такива, се изпращат незабавно на подателя на искането.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 27. Свидетелите, ако такива е посочила едната или другата страна, се призовават пред църковния съд по адреси, посочени от самите страни с призовки.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 28. Призовките, както за страните, така и за свидетелите, трябва да се връчат най-късно в седемдневен срок преди откриване на делото. Само в извънредни случаи и по усмотрение на духовния съд страните и свидетелите могат да се призовават и в по-къс срок, но никога по-рано от един цял свободен ден преди деня на съдебното заседание, освен ако на свидетеля му предстои отпътуване или желае да бъде разпитан преди това.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава ІV<br />
Ход на делото в съдебно заседание.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 29. Председателят на църковния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице определя времето, мястото на съдебното заседание по всяко дело, като посочва точния час, в който ще се открие съдебното заседание.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 30. Заседанието се открива от председателя или от упълномощено от него духовно лице. След откриването той проверява присъствуват ли всички повикани лица, страни и свидетели.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 31. Когато се срещне непредвидено препятствие в откриването или продължаването на съдебното заседание в уречения ден, по една или друга причина, заседанието се отлага за следващ път, като това се съобщава веднага на призованите и дошли в съда лица.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 32. Ако лицето, което е подало искането, не се яви в съда в определения ден, без да представи уважителни причини, съдът може или да отложи делото за друг ден, или да признае неявяването му като отричане от жалбата му и да прекрати делото, освен ако жалбата има за предмет обстоятелства, които веднъж станали известни на духовната власт, се преследват независимо от всякаква жалба.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 33. Уважителни причини за неявяване на страните и свидетелите им или вещите лица, се считат:<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1) лишените от свобода;<br />
2) болест;<br />
3) смърт на някой член от семейството или на други близки сродници;<br />
4) обстоятелство от непредвидим и непреодолим характер;<br />
5) по-късно връчване на призовката от установения срок.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 34. Когато свидетели или вещи лица не се явят по уважителни причини в определения ден в заседание на църковния съд, делото може да се отложи за друг ден по искане на заинтересованите страни, или даже по усмотрение на самия съд, като при призоваването им за следващо заседание, се следват правилата предвидени в определения ред за самите страни.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 35. След като се проверят всички лица, които са повикани и се установи, че присъстват в съдебното заседание, пристъпва се към разглеждане делото, като докладчикът по делото докладва и прочита подаденото искане.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 36. Разглеждането на делото може да се спре:<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1) по съгласие на спорещите страни, когато оплакванията имат съвършено частен характер;<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2) в случай на смърт или умопомрачение.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава VI<br />
Заседания на църковния съд</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 37. Заседанията на църковния съд са публични, като на тях могат да се явят като слушатели само лица от православно вероизповедание. За заседанията се води протокол, който се подписва от председателя на съда и от определения протоколчик, който може да не е от състава на съда.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 38. Като се открие съдебното заседание и се докладва делото, председателят на църковния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице задава въпрос на едната и другата страна, имат ли нещо да кажат преди пристъпването към разглеждане на делото.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 39. Страните имат право в първото заседание да заявят било отвод за подсъдност, било отвод срещу някой от състава на съда и отвод срещу председателя на църковния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице, било когато между член от съдебния състав, председателя на църковния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице и една от страните има близко сродство, или са свързани чрез явен интерес по разглежданото дело, било поради известен и основателен спор между лицето, което повдига отвода и отвеждания съдебен член, председателя на духовния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице.<br />
Председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него духовно лице, както и член на състава по искане на една от страните, се отстранява сам или по искане на една от страните, ако е страна по делото или е съпруг или роднина на една от страните по права линия без ограничение, по съребрена линия до четвърта степен или по сватовство до трета степен.<br />
Председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него духовно лице, се отстранява и ако е взел участие при издаване на обжалваното решение, ако е бил свидетел или вещо лице по делото, както и ако е заинтересован от изхода на делото или се намира със страна в особени отношения, които будят основателно съмнение в неговата безпристрастност.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 40. Въпросът за отвода се решава от църковния съд без участието на отвеждания член, председател на църковния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице, като това не спира разглеждането на делото.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 41. При започване на делото председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него духовно лице изслушва най–напред подателя, след това ответната страна, която следва да даде своите устни обяснения и възражения, в случай че подателят поддържа искането си. <br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 42. Подателят може да оттегли искането си още в първото заседание, с писмено или устно заявление до съда, но насрещната страна може да поиска разглеждането на същото дело да продължи в същото или в следващо заседание.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 43. При разглеждане на делото в църковния съд страните са длъжни сами да се защитават и обясняват по църковно административни и църковно наказателни дела.<br />
Те могат да се представляват от лице с духовен сан и/или вещо в църковното право.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 44. Миряни пред църковния съд се допускат само като защитници по църковно имуществени спорове и по спорове относно имуществена отговорност.<br />
Съдът може също да назначи правоспособен юрист от православно вероизповедание, който да го подпомага.<br />
Като защитници се допускат само лица от православно вероизповедание и с правоспособност за процесуално представителство като адвокати.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 45. Когато ответната страна признае приписваното й деяние, председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него духовно лице или член на духовния състав на съда може да има питания отнасящи се до обстоятелствата на това деяние.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 46. Мълчанието на насрещната страна не може да се счита за признание.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава на VII.<br />
Доказателства пред църковния съд</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.47. Доказателствата пред църковния съд са :<br />
1. Писмени книжа;<br />
2. Самопризнание;<br />
3. Свидетелски показания;<br />
4. Заключения и становища на вещи лица, когато съдът счете ползването им за необходимо, с оглед правилното разрешаване на спора.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 48. Писмените доказателства, представени от едната или другата страна, може да са подписани от тях или от трети лица. При липса на подпис съдът преценява достоверността на документа.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 49. Църковният съд разглежда и оценява тия доказателства, като в същото време има в предвид, както устните обяснения на страните, така и от свидетелските показания, ако има такива.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 50. В случай, че една от страните изкаже съмнение в писменото доказателство, съдът отлага за известно време делото и се разпорежда за проверяване на оспорваната истинност на писменото доказателство било чрез целия съд в разпоредителното заседание, било чрез един от членовете му, но и в единия и в другия случай - при помощта на едно или две вещи лица, редовно призовани.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 51. Ако вместо съмнение страната заяви, че представеното писмено доказателство е подложно, църковният съд приканва другата да даде обяснения. В случай че страната, която е заявила тоя подлог, не се убеди от тия обяснения и настоява, че представеното писмо и доказателство е подложно, съдът след като привлече вниманието на двете страни върху последствията от подигнатия подлог, съставя протокол за заявения подлог, от който протокол заинтересованата страна може да вземе препис и да заведе дело пред светско съдилище. Църковното производство не се спира, освен ако съдът не реши друго.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 52. Самопризнание не пречи на църковния съд да постъпи по свое усмотрение, или по искане на заинтересованите лица, към изследваните обстоятелствата по признаването на деянието от самата страна.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 53 Когато църковният съд се съмнява във верността на самопризнанието, той е длъжен да поиска подкрепването му с допълнителни обяснения и с други доказателства, а за тая цел той може да отложи делото и за друг ден.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 54. Самопризнание може да се направи и пред църковния съд било писмено, в някое от книжата, които му се подават, било устно при разглеждане на делото, и в такъв случай самопризнанието се записва в протокол.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 55. Веднъж направено самопризнание не може да се оттегли, освен ако се докаже, че то е направено по погрешка или несъзнателно, или под заплашване, или под давление на противната страна, или други влиятелни лица.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 56. Когато ответната страна не признава приписаното му деяние, председателят на църковния съд или упълномощено от него духовно лице, го приканва да даде своите обяснения или опровержения, с които да опровергае, ако може жалбата, която е подадено срещу него.<br />
Също така с разрешение на председателя на църковния съд или упълномощено от него лице, членовете на църковния съд могат да задават въпроси на обвиняемото лице по всички обстоятелства по делото, за да получат достатъчно разяснение. Мълчанието не се приема за признание, а се тълкува заедно с всички други обстоятелсва.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 57. Когато по едно дело са призовани свидетели от едната или другата страна, те се разпитват след разпита на съдещите се страни, но след като предварително съда определи тяхната самоличност и отношения между страните.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 58. Свидетелите и вещите лица се разпитват по начало без клетва и само по изключение под клетва, ако сам съдът намери това за нужно или страните поискат това.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 59. Не се допускат за свидетели:<br />
1. умопомрачени;<br />
2. духовни лица за това, което им е поверено или изповядано;<br />
3. поверениците на съдещите се относно признанието, което им е направено от доверителите им<br />
4. лица под 18 г.<br />
5. съпрузите на съдещите се страни;<br />
6. иноверните и инославните в заведени дела срещу свещеници.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 60. Страните имат право да представят отвод срещу повиканите свидетели, когато последните са роднини на едната или другата страна по права линия без ограничение, по съребрена – от първите три степени по сватовщина, от първите две степени по свето кръщение – до трета степен включително, или когато те се намират в особени отношения или в съдебен спор или още в явно и безспорно противоречие с една от страните, или пък имат някаква облага от решението на делото в полза на оная страна, която ги е призовала да свидетелстват.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 61. Свидетелите се разпитват отделно един по един, но църковният съд може да постанови да се разпита отново в присъствието на другите свидетели.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 62. Разпитът на свидетеля се започва с приканването му в съдебна зала, което му прави председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него лице, като свидетелят е длъжен да представи цялата информация известна му по делото, без да става отзив на слухове, за които не е известно от къде произлизат. <br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 63. На свидетеля могат да се задават въпроси, както от членовете на духовния съд, така и от страните, като се дава предимство на онази страна, която го е повикала.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 64. Ако някой свидетел не може да се изрази на български, страната, която го е викала, длъжна е да доведе в духовния съд и нужния преводач, за да преведе на български даваните свидетелски показания.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 65. След разпита на свидетел, с разрешение на председателя на църковния съд, той се оттегля, но остава на разположение извън залата за доуточнения и допълнителни въпроси.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 66. Когато има извършени църковни безчиния или престъпления в Божиите храмове и манастирите, освен свидетелските показания, църковният съд може да разпореди чрез вещо лице проверка на място, където е извършено деянието.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава VIII.<br />
Решение на делото</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 67. След разпита на свидетелите председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него духовно лице приканва страните за последни устни изложения, като оставя последната дума на обвиняемото лице.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 68. Ако в последствие било от свидетелски показания, било от обяснения на страните се открият съвършено нови и важни обстоятелства по делото, съдът има право да прекъсне заседанието и да отложи за друг ден по-нататъшното му разглеждане, за да даде възможност на насрещната страна да подготви своята защита.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 69. Когато страните завършат своите обяснения и заключения, председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него лице обявява, че делото е достатъчно разяснено, както и че църковният съд ще пристъпи към разрешение на спора.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 70. Когато няма обособена стая за съвещание на църковния съд, председателят на същия или упълномощеното от него лице, приканва страните и другите лица, ако има такива, да излязат от съдебната зала, след което същите се съвещават.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 71. При съвещанието, в което се разискват въпросите, възникнали от дадените в съдебното заседание обяснения, председателят на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него лице отправя своите питания до членовете на съда с тяхното мнение, като това започва да прави от по-младшия член на съда. Мнението на председателя на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него лице се обявява след мнението на всички други членове.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 72. Когато така събраните гласове се разделят на две, се взема мнението на председателя на съда или упълномощеното от него лице.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 73. При постановяване на решението, църковният съд се ръководи от правилата на светата православна църква, нейните законоустановителни актове, от предписанията на УБПЦ – БП, от окръжните постановления на Св. Синод, а в случай, че няма такива, от практиката на другите поместни православни църкви. При решението си духовният съд следва да има предвид както всички обстоятелства взети съвкупно, така и от представените документи и свидетелски показания, както и дадените от страните обяснения.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 74. Решението се обявява писмено или устно от председателя на духовния съд или упълномощеното от него в самата съдебна зала в присъствието на страните, ако са там. Съдът пита страните дали са съгласни с решението. Решението не подлежи на обжалване от страната, която заяви, че е съгласна с него.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 75. Членовете на духовния съд могат да останат при особено мнение, което следва да впишат в протокола.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 76. В решението духовният съд посочва:<br />
1. Датата, месеца и годината, когато е станало съдебното заседание;<br />
2. имената на съдиите, които са участвали в решението;<br />
3. името, презимето и фамилията на съдещите се страни;<br />
4. същността на решението.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 77. Когато делото е сложно и се изисква по–дълги съвещания, произнасянето на решение може да се отложи за друга дата, която се обявява на страните.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 78. Решението трябва да съдържа още:<br />
1. Кратко изложение на обстоятелствата по делото и исканията на страните;<br />
2. Съображенията на църковния съд и правилата и законоустановленията, от които се е ръководил;<br />
3. Отбелязване в какъв срок недоволната страна може да се отнесе въззивно до Св. Синод и срока, в който следва недоволната страна да се съобрази. <br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 79. Решението на съда трябва да се изготви писмено в седемдневен срок от обявяването и същото се подписва от председателя на църковния съд или упълномощеното от него лице, както и от всички членове, които са участвали в постановяването му. <br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 80. Страните могат да прегледат решението на църковния съд, както и да вземат препис-извлечение от него, както и преписи от документите, които се подписват от председателя и секретаря на съда.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 81. Църковният съд може да постанови и задочно решение, когато са били изпълнени всички предписани формалности за привикване на страните, а една от тях не се е явила в определения срок без уважителна причина.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.82. Задочното решение може след изготвянето му да се съобщи на неявилата се страна било по искане на другата страна, било от самия съд, когато той намери това за необходимо.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.83. Задочното решение важи за неявилата се страна от деня, в който й е било връчено, и от тоя ден започва да тече срокът за въззив.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.84. Решението подлежи на обжалване в 14 дневен срок от предоставянето му в канцеларията на съда (Митрополията).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава ІХ</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Св. Синод – Върховен духовен съд.</b><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 85. Когато има да разглежда, като първостепенна и последна инстанция, някое дело, отнасящо се до един обвиняван епископ или епархийски митрополит, Св. Синод сам решава предварително по какъв начин да се призове обвиняемия писмено, или упълномощава лице, което да го призове, както и за срока, който му се дава да се яви пред него и за мерките, които трябва да се вземат в случай, че обвиняемият не се подчини и не се яви нито при първото, нито при второто призоваване.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 86. Обвиняемият епископ или епархийски митрополит може да представи пред Св. Синод своята защита, чрез всички средства, с които си служат и всички други страни, като например писмени доказателства и свидетелски показания.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 87. Самопризнанието, ако има такова, в този случай се оценява от Св. Синод и той може, по свое усмотрение, да поиска подкрепа или не с други доказателства.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 88. Епископ или митрополит, докато не е осъден окончателно, се ползва с всички подобаващи на сана му права и задължения, като архиерей на БПЦ.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 89. Св. Синод, като последна инстанция по същество, разглежда обжалваните пред него решения на църковните съдилища като несправедливи или противоречащи на църковните правила, законоустановения и предписания.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 90. Срещу всяко решение на църковните съдилища недоволната страна има право да подаде въззивна жалба до Св. Синод, чрез оня църковен съд, който е издал решението.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 91. Във въззивната жалба, подписана от въззивника, трябва да се посочи обжалваното решение на църковния съд, името, презимето и местожителството, както на въззивната, тъй и на противната страна.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.92. Какви обстоятелства на делото или с кои църковни правила, законоустановения и предписания се оборва обжалваното решение изцяло или отчасти, и, най-накрая въззивника посочва своето моление.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 93. Когато се подава въззивна жалба, от нея се прилагат толкова преписи, колкото са лицата, против които се подава въззивът. При това към въззивната жалба се прилага и заверен препис от обжалваното решение.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 94. Във въззивната жалба не се допускат нови оплаквания, но се допускат нови средства, ако има такива, за защита на въззивника или за оборване на противната страна.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 95. Правото за въззив може да бъде възстановено от Светия Синод, ако просрочването в доставяне на въззивната жалба е произлязло по вина на канцеларията на съда или поради непредвидени и непреодолими обстоятелства.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 96. Молбата за възстановяване правото на въззив се подава пред Светия Синод в 14 дневен срок от деня, в който страната научи за вината на канцеларията или непредвидените и непреодолими обстоятелства прекратят действието си .<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 97. Въззивната жалба по определение на духовния съд се оставя без движение:<br />
1) когато към нея не са приложени нужните преписи от същата тая въззивна жалба;<br />
2) когато е написана грубо и оскърбително за духовния съд.<br />
За оставянето в тия случаи без движение на въззивната жалба, съобщава се своевременно на въззивника и му се определя срок за поправяне на тези пропуски.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 98. След приемане на въззивната жалба, въззивният съд изпраща препис от нея на противната страна.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 99. Когато във въззивната жалба не бъде отбелязано местожителството на противната страна, препис от жалбата се изпраща в онова местожителство, което е отбелязано при производство на делото в първоинстанционния църковен съд.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 100. Въззивната жалба, заедно с цялото производство и с всички други документи се изпращат незабавно от първоинстанционния църковен съд на Св. Синод.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 101. Страните нямат основателно право да протестират направо пред Св. Синод за забавяне делото от страна на първоинстанционния църковен съд.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 102. Св. Синод разглежда делото по същество, като същият може да призове в определения за разглеждане на делото ден, както самите страни, така и разпитаните, и ново посочените свидетели.<br />
Той съди и решава въз основа на документите и протоколите от първоинстанционния съд, като има предвид и въззивната жалба, както и писмения отговор, ако има такъв.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.103. В случай на отсъствие на страните, същите имат право да подават до Св. Синод писмени обяснения за поддържане или оборване въззивната жалба.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.104. Решенията на Светия Синод са окончателни. Правото на милост принадлежи на Св. Синод и се упражнява по начина определен от каноните.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава Х<br />
Влезли в сила решения</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл. 109. Решенията влизат в сила:<br />
1/ Когато в установения срок не са подадени въззивни или касационни жалби;<br />
2/ Когато подадената въззивна или касационна жалба е била оставена без последствие;<br />
3/ Страните са се съгласили с тях.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.108. На влезлите в законна сила присъди и решения на църковния съд всички членове на Църквата дължат подчинение.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава XI. <br />
Съдебни разноски</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Чл.112. Св. Синод определя размера на съдебните и канцеларски разноски по делото, ако има такива.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Глава XII<br />
Преходни и заключителни разпоредби</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">§.1. Този правилник се приема въз основа на чл. 201 от УБПЦ.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">§.2. Делата по постъпки и спорове, възникнали преди приемането на този правилник се разглеждат по неговия ред.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">§.3. Настоящият правилник влиза в сила от деня на одобрението му от Св. Синод в пълен състав и отменя всички наредби, които му противоречат.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-81137982018296905772011-10-06T16:41:00.002+02:002015-01-27T08:03:32.099+01:00УСТАВ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.de/2015/01/blog-post.html">Съдържание на Устава на Българската православна църква - Българска патриаршия</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Приет от <strong>VI-ия Църковно-народен събор на 11 декември 2008 г.</strong> в Рилската света обител, </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">публикуван в <strong>„Църковен вестник”, извънреден брой от 9 януари 2009 г.</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Шестият църковно-народен събор</strong>, имайки за основа </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Символа на вярата:</strong> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> „Вярвам в един Бог Отец, Вседържител, Творец на небето и земята, на всичко видимо и невидимо. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">И в един Господ Иисус Христос, Сина Божи, Единородния, Който е роден от Отца преди всички векове: Светлина от Светлина, Бог истинен от Бог истинен, роден, несътворен, единосъщен с Отца, чрез Когото всичко е станало; Който заради нас, човеците, и заради нашето спасение слезе от небесата и се въплъти от Духа Светаго и Дева Мария и стана човек; и бе разпнат за нас при Понтия Пилата, и страда, и бе погребан; и възкръсна в третия ден, според Писанията; и възлезе на небесата, и седи отдясно на Отца; и пак ще дойде със слава да съди живи и мъртви, и царството Му не ще има край. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">И в Духа Светаго, Господа, Животворящия, Който от Отца изхожда, Комуто се покланяме и Го славим наравно с Отца и Сина, и Който е говорил чрез пророците. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">В една света, съборна и апостолска Църква. Изповядвам едно кръщение за опрощаване на греховете. Чакам възкресение на мъртвите и живот в бъдещия век! Амин!” - </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">прие настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЧАСТ ПЪРВА</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">УСТРОЙСТВО </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава първа</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ОСНОВНИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 1. (1) Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия е неотделим член на Едната Света, Съборна и Апостолска Църква, която има за свой вечен и непреходен Глава Самия неин Божествен Основател, нашия Господ Иисус Христос и се направлява от живеещия в нея Свети Дух. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия е Поместна автокефална църква и се намира във вероучително и канонично единство, молитвено и евхаристийно общение с Поместните православни църкви. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Самоуправляващата се Българска православна църква - Българска Патриаршия е правоприемник на Плисковската архиепископия, Преславската патриаршия, Охридската архиепископия, Търновската патриаршия и Българската екзархия. Тя е единна и неделима. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 2. Основа на устройството и управлението на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия са: Свещеното Писание, Свещеното Предание, Правилата на светите Апостоли, свещените Канони на вселенските и поместните събори, учението на светите Отци и настоящият Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 3. Областта на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия в пределите на Република България се разделя на следните епархии:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. Софийска - със седалище в София и архиерейски наместничества в Самоков, Ихтиман, Дупница, Радомир, Кюстендил, Трън и Годеч;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. Варненска и Великопреславска - със седалище във Варна и архиерейски наместничества в Шумен, Провадия, Добрич и Търговище;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. Великотърновска - със седалище във Велико Търново и архиерейски наместничества в Свищов, Горна Оряховица, Габрово, Елена, Севлиево, Никопол, Дряново, Павликени и Трявна;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. Видинска - със седалище във Видин и архиерейски наместничества в Лом, Берковица, Кула и Белоградчик; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. Врачанска - със седалище във Враца и архиерейски наместничества в Бяла Слатина, Оряхово и Мездра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. Доростолска - със седалище в Силистра и архиерейски наместничества в Дулово и Тервел;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. Ловчанска - със седалище в Ловеч и архиерейски наместничества в Пирдоп, Ботевград, Тетевен и Троян;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. Неврокопска - със седалище в гр. Гоце Делчев (Неврокоп) и архиерейски наместничества в Благоевград, Разлог, Сандански и Петрич; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. Плевенска - със седалище в Плевен и архиерейско наместничество в Луковит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. Пловдивска - със седалище в Пловдив и архиерейски наместничества в Пазарджик, Асеновград, Хасково, Карлово, Панагюрище, Пещера, Смолян и Ивайловград;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. Русенска - със седалище в Русе и архиерейски наместничества в Разград, Тутракан и Попово;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. Сливенска - със седалище в Сливен и архиерейски наместничества в Бургас, Ямбол, Карнобат, Тополовград, Котел и Малко Търново;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. Старозагорска - със седалище в Стара Загора и архиерейски наместничества в Казанлък, Чирпан, Нова Загора, Свиленград и Харманли. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 4. (1) В диоцеза и юрисдикцията на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия влизат и: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. Българската източноправославна епархия в САЩ, Канада и Австралия - със седалище в Ню Йорк и архиерейски наместничества в Торонто за Канада и в Мелбърн за Австралия. Устройството и управлението на епархията се определят с устав, одобрен на епархийски събор и утвърден от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. Българската източноправославна епархия в Западна и Средна Европа - със седалище в Берлин. Устройството и управлението на епархията се определят с устав, одобрен на епархийски събор и утвърден от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За православните българи в Турция има Българска църковна община в Истанбул. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 5. Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се управлява от Свети Синод, а всяка епархия - от своя архиерей, който носи титлата митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 6. (1) Върховен ръководен орган на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия е Светият Синод, който се състои от Българския патриарх и епархийските митрополити. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод действа в пълен и намален състав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 7. (1) Епархийските митрополити на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия канонично се намират под прякото ръководство и надзор на Светия Синод, който утвърждава каноничния им избор и до него се отнасят направо. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) При богослужение епархийските митрополити поменават името на Българския патриарх и Светия Синод, а при вдовство на патриаршеския престол - Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 8. Законодателната власт в Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се упражнява от Църковния събор, който се състои от архиереите и от избрани по реда на този Устав клирици и миряни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 9. Върховната съдебна и управленска власт на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се упражнява от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 10. Върховният църковен съвет е консултативен орган при Светия Синод по общите стопански и финансови дела на Българската православна църква. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 11. Църковната власт в епархията принадлежи на епархийския митрополит и се упражнява със съдействието на Епархийски съвет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 12. Органи на митрополитската власт в епархията са: архиерейските наместници, енорийските свещеници, църковните настоятелства и манастирските управления. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 13. (1) Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните местни поделения - митрополии, църкви и манастири, са юридически лица.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Неотделими членове на юридическото лице на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия са митрополиите и ставропигиалните манастири като юридически лица и като местни поделения в нейния диоцез и юрисдикция. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Седалището на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия е в гр. София.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Седалище на митрополията е населеното място, определено в чл. 3 и чл. 4.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Седалище на църквата е населеното място, в което е изграден храмът й.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (6) Седалище на манастира е населеното място, в или до което той се намира, или близко до него населено място. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 14. Патриаршеската катедрала „Св. Александър Невски” има статут на ставропигиален храм. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава втора</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪБОР </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪБОР </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 15. Църковният събор се състои от:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. архиереите - митрополити и епископи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. по трима клирици на енорийско служение и трима миряни от всяка епархия; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. главния секретар на Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. по един представител на ставропигиалните манастири, избран от съответния манастирски събор;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. по двама от всяка епархия представители на епархийските манастири - един монах и една монахиня, определени от съответния епархийски митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. по един представител от средните духовни училища, избран от съответния учителски съвет;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. петима духовници с висше образование и петима миряни - общественици, предложени от Светия Синод и избрани от Църковния събор с явно гласуване. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 16. Делегатите на Църковния събор се избират за срок от четири години. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 17. Председател на Църковния събор е Българският патриарх или при изключителни обстоятелства - определен от него с писмена заповед председателстващ Събора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 18. Църковният събор се свиква на редовна сесия в първата година на всеки четиригодишен период, а извънредно - когато Светият Синод намери това за необходимо. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 19. В законодателната си дейност Църковният събор трябва да спазва неизменно догматите на православната вяра, правилата и практиката на светата Православна църква, църковния мир и единение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ИЗБОР НА ЧЛЕНОВЕ НА ЦЪРКОВНИЯ СЪБОР </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 20. (1) Клирик, избираем за член на Църковния събор, трябва да отговаря на следните условия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да има качества на достоизбираем за епархийски избирател по чл. 102;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да има най-малко пет години безукорна служба като свещенослужител и най-малко средно образование.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Мирянин, избираем за член на Църковния събор, трябва да отговаря на следните условия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да има качества на достоизбираем за епархийски избирател по чл. 103; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да бъде строго православен в живота и мислите си и да е познат като благочестив и добродетелен. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 21. (1) По решение на Светия Синод, издавано през пролетта на всяка четвърта година, епархийският митрополит поканва с окръжно писмо епархийските избиратели да се съберат в третата света неделя от издаването на окръжното в престолния град на епархията за избор на членове на Църковния събор.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) В определения ден след Божествената литургия епархийските избиратели се събират в светата Митрополия, където става регистрацията им. Когато присъстват най-малко 2/3 от тях, митрополитът или определеното от него с писмена заповед духовно лице открива събранието. Когато не се събере изискуемият кворум, събранието се отлага с един час и се открива при кворум повече от половината от избирателите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 22. (1) След молитва към Бога, по предложение на председателя събранието избира с явно гласуване от състава си двама клирици и двама миряни, които заедно с него съставят бюрото. Съставя се листа на кандидатите - до 10 клирици и 10 миряни. Всеки избирател има право да предложи имена на достоизбираеми. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Изборът се провежда с тайно гласоподаване и мнозинство повече от половината от гласовете на присъстващите, като всеки избирател гласува за трима енорийски свещеници и трима миряни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато при гласоподаването не се получи мнозинството по ал. 2 или не се получи за шестима, гласоподаването се повтаря, докато трима клирици и трима миряни получат изискуемото мнозинство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 23. За избора се съставя акт, който се вписва в протоколната книга на Епархийския съвет, подписва се от членовете на избирателното бюро и епархийските избиратели и се подпечатва с печата на епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 24. (1) Възражения относно редовността и правилността на избора и по качествата на избраните прави председателстващият. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Жалби от избиратели за нередовност при избора се подават до епархийския митрополит в седемдневен срок от деня на избора, а възражения относно качествата на избраните лица може да подаде всеки християнин до епархийския митрополит в 15-дневен срок от деня на избора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) След изтичането на срока по ал. 2 актът за избора се прочита в заседание на Епархийския съвет, който преценява качествата на избраните и изказва мнението си. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Епархийският митрополит изпраща на Светия Синод книжата по избора заедно с препис от акта. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 25. (1) Когато изборът, проверен от Светия Синод в намален състав, се окаже редовен и избраните лица - отговарящи на изискванията на настоящия Устав, Светият Синод в намален състав прогласява избраните за членове на Събора и известява на съответния епархийски митрополит да ги снабди с писма за участие в Събора.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Преди да се произнесе, Светият Синод в намален състав, ако намери за необходимо, извършва анкета по проведения избор чрез свой пратеник.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато изборът бъде касиран, Светият Синод в намален състав предписва на епархийския митрополит да призове епархийските избиратели в кратък срок за провеждане на нов избор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 26. (1) Когато при редовно проведен избор се установи, че някой от избраните не отговаря на изискванията по Устава или през четиригодишното си служение се откаже от членство в Събора, изсели се или почине, за член на Събора се прогласява онзи от кандидатите, който след избраните е получил най-много гласове и притежава качествата на избираем, установени по Устава. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато член на Събора загуби качествата си на избираем през четиригодишното си служение и това се установи по съответния ред, се прилага редът по ал. 1. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ И ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА ЦЪРКОВНИЯ СЪБОР </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 27. Църковният събор има следните правомощия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. изменя и допълва Устава на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия по предложение на Светия Синод или по предложение на членове на Събора;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. приема или отменя синодалните наредби;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. изслушва отчетен доклад на Светия Синод за цялостната дейност на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия през изтеклия четиригодишен период и се произнася по доклада. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 28. Решенията на Църковния събор по въпроси от вероучителен (догматически), канонически и богослужебен характер имат сила, ако до 15 дни от гласуването им не последва изявление от Светия Синод, че те противоречат на учението и преданието на светата Православна църква. Оспорваните решения се внасят за ново разглеждане от следващия редовен или извънреден Църковен събор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 29. Църковният събор се свиква редовно веднъж на четири години, а извънредно - при необходимост. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 30. (1) Църковният събор се свиква, открива, ръководи и закрива от Българския патриарх или определен от него с писмена заповед председателстващ.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Българският патриарх или определеният от него председателстващ открива Църковния събор със слово, в което се очертава положението на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и се представят предложенията, които се внасят за разглеждане в Събора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 31. (1) Заседанията на Църковния събор са законни при кворум повече от половината съборни членове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията се приемат с мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите членове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 32. Съборното бюро се състои от председателя или председателстващия и избрани от Събора четирима секретари: двама клирици и двама миряни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 33. За съборните разисквания и решения се водят протоколи, които се вписват в специална книга и се подписват от бюрото на Събора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 34. (1) Решенията за приемане на Устава на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и за измененията и допълненията му се подписват от бюрото на Събора и се публикуват в „Църковен вестник” в едномесечен срок от тяхното приемане. Уставът влиза в сила от публикуването му в „Църковен вестник”.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията на Събора влизат в сила от деня на публикуването им в „Църковен вестник”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 35. Църковният събор изработва и приема правилник за организацията и дейността си. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава трета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">АРХИЕРЕЙСКИ СЪБОР </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 36. (1) Архиерейският събор се състои от архиереите - митрополити и епископи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Архиерейският събор се свиква от Българския патриарх, когато Светият Синод намери това за необходимо.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Архиереите имат право да внасят предложения за реда по разглеждане на процедурни и протоколни въпроси.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Светият Синод извършва подготовката по свикването на Архиерейския събор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 37. (1) Председател на Архиерейския събор е Българският патриарх или определен от него с писмена заповед епархийски митрополит. Когато патриаршеският престол е вдовстващ или овакантен, председател на Събора е Наместник-председателят на Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Членовете на Архиерейския събор не могат да отказват участие в заседанията му, освен в случай на болест или друга важна причина, призната от Събора за уважителна. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава четвърта</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">БЪЛГАРСКИ ПАТРИАРХ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">БЪЛГАРСКИ ПАТРИАРХ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 38. (1) Българският патриарх е и Софийски митрополит. Той служи пожизнено. Седалището му е в гр. София.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато Българският патриарх по собствено желание и по причини, допустими от църковните канони, се оттегли, той носи титлата “Бивш Патриарх Български” и достойнството си “Блаженство”, като Светият Синод му осигурява условия за живот, отговарящи на висотата на предишното му служение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 39. Българският патриарх представлява Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и от името на Светия Синод влиза в отношения с: предстоятелите и представителите на Поместните православни църкви; органите на държавната и местната власт в Република България; чужди държави и техни дипломатически представителства в Република България; международни организации и други вероизповедания в Република България и извън нея. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ИЗБОР НА БЪЛГАРСКИ ПАТРИАРХ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 40. Избираемият за Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит трябва да притежава следните качества:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да е на служение епархийски митрополит на Българската православна църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да е не по-млад от 50 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да е управлявал епархия като митрополит поне 5 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да се отличава с правилни мисли върху православната вяра и с точно спазване на църковния ред. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 41. Българският патриарх и Софийски митрополит се избира от Патриаршески избирателен църковен събор, който се състои от:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. архиереите - митрополити и епископи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. по петима представители на всяка епархия - трима клирици и двама миряни, а от Софийска епархия десет представители - шестима клирици и четирима миряни;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. по един представител на ставропигиалните манастири, избран от съответния манастирски събор;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. по двама от всяка епархия представители на епархийските манастири - един монах и една монахиня, определени от съответния епархийски митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. по един представител на средните духовни училища, определени от ръководствата им. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 42. (1) Когато патриаршеският престол овдовее, Светият Синод временно се ръководи от старшия по митрополитско служение член на намаления му състав. Той уведомява за кончината Поместните православни църкви, президента на Република България, председателя на Народното събрание и министър-председателя и ръководи делата на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия до избирането на Наместник-председател, което се извършва в седемдневен срок от овдовяването на патриаршеския престол. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наместник-председателят със Светия Синод предприема необходимото във връзка с избирането на нов Български патриарх, което трябва да стане най-късно до четири месеца от овдовяването на патриаршеския престол. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 43. (1) Светият Синод определя датата за свикване на Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор и разпорежда с окръжно писмо на епархийските митрополити да свикат във всяка епархия в определен неделен ден епархийските избиратели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) При кворум от две трети от списъка на епархийските избиратели под председателството на митрополита или определено от него с писмена заповед духовно лице, с тайно гласоподаване и мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите се избират петима представители на епархията - трима клирици и двама миряни, а от Софийска епархия - шестима клирици и четирима миряни. За избора на представителите се съставя протокол, подписан от митрополита или от определеното от него с писмена заповед духовно лице и от избирателите. Протоколът се подпечатва и своевременно се изпраща в Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Мотивирани жалби от избиратели до митрополита за нередовност в избора се подават в тридневен срок от неговото провеждане. Жалбите се разглеждат от Светия Синод в намален състав. Когато се установи, че изборът е нередовен, го касира и определя провеждането на нов избор. Митрополитът разпорежда незабавното провеждане на нов избор.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Светият Синод разпорежда на игумените на ставропигиалните манастири и средните духовни училища да изберат по един свой представител съгласно чл. 41.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Светият Синод разпорежда всеки епархийски митрополит да определи и двама представители на епархийските си манастири - един монах и една монахиня.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (6) Представителите по чл. 41, т. 2-5, снабдени с писма, съответно подписани и подпечатани, участват като членове на Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 44. (1) Списъкът на достоизбираеми за представители на епархията в избора на Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит съдържа имената на 15 клирици и 8 миряни, които отговарят на изискванията по чл. 102 и чл. 103. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Списъкът се съставя от управляващия митрополит при участието на епархийските съветници и архиерейските наместници. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 45. (1) Светият Синод на заседание най-малко седем дни преди определения ден за избор на Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит, с тайно гласоподаване и мнозинство от две трети от членовете на Светия Синод, избира трима епархийски митрополити - кандидати за патриаршеския престол, които отговарят на изискванията по чл. 40. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато един или двама митрополити получат изискуемото мнозинство, гласоподаването се повтаря до избирането на още двама или един с мнозинство две трети от членовете на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато двама митрополити получат по равен брой гласове, гласоподаването се повтаря само за двамата, докато един от тях получи мнозинство повече от половината от гласовете на всички митрополити.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) За произведения избор се вписва изложение в кондиката на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 46. (1) Светият Синод свиква Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор в Синодната палата в определения неделен ден. След проверка за редовността на избирателните писма на избраните и определени членове на Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор и в случай, че присъстват най-малко три четвърти от всички членове на избирателния събор, наместник-председателят на Светия Синод след молитва към Бога открива Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наместник-председателят приканва Събора да избере с явно гласуване двама клирици и двама миряни за членове на избирателното бюро, на което той е председател. Членовете на бюрото се избират с мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато не присъстват три четвърти от членовете на Събора, откриването му се отлага с един час, след което Патриаршеският избирателен църковен събор се открива, ако присъстват повече от половината от всички членове на Събора. Когато не се събере този кворум, Светият Синод насрочва избора за следващия неделен ден. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 47. (1) След откриване на заседанието наместник-председателят обявява имената на тримата кандидати за патриаршеския престол, избрани от Светия Синод, и приканва членовете на Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор да изберат с тайно гласоподаване един от тримата. Гласоподават всички присъстващи членове на избирателния събор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Кандидатът, получил най-малко 2/3 от гласовете на присъстващите избиратели, се обявява от наместник-председателя на Светия Синод за канонично и законно избран Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато никой от кандидатите не получи изискуемото мнозинство по ал. 2, изборът се повтаря, като в него участват двамата, получили най-много гласове. За избран се обявява този, който е получил повечето гласове. При равни гласове гласуването се повтаря.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) За извършения избор се съставя Акт, който се вписва в кондиката на Светия Синод и се подписва от избирателното бюро и членовете на Събора, след което наместник-председателят закрива Патриаршеския избирателен църковен събор. Екземпляр от Акта се предоставя на новоизбрания Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Светият Синод отслужва благодарствен молебен и извършва интронизацията на новоизбрания Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит, който поема правомощията, свързани със званието му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 48. Светият Синод съобщава името на новоизбрания Български патриарх и Софийски митрополит на предстоятелите на Поместните православни църкви, президента на Република България, председателя на Народното събрание и министър-председателя и го оповестява на обществеността. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА БЪЛГАРСКИЯ ПАТРИАРХ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 49. (1) Българският патриарх като Предстоятел на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, освен правомощията си като епархийски митрополит, има и следните правомощия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. председателства заседанията на Църковния събор, Архиерейския събор, Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. осъществява контрол своевременно и точно да се изпълняват влезлите в сила решения на Църковния събор, Архиерейския събор и на Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. свиква по решение на Светия Синод заседанията на Църковния събор, на Архиерейския събор и заседанията на Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. приема писма, молби и жалби до Светия Синод и своевременно ги разпределя по компетентност за разглеждане и решаване;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. ръкополага със Светия Синод епископи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. освещава със Светия Синод св. Миро;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. осъществява контрол за запазване на църковната дисциплина и ред и при нарушения внася въпроса в Светия Синод за вземане на съответните мерки и носене на отговорност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. дава отпуск на епархийските митрополити и разрешение да идват в столицата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. отправя от името на Светия Синод послания към клира и миряните по повод празнични дни, юбилейни годишнини, както и във връзка със съвременни проблеми.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Българският патриарх се ползва с първенство по чест пред всички архиереи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и носи достойнството „Светейшество”. Външните отличителни знаци на патриаршеско достойнство са: бяла епанокамилавка с кръст, нагръден кръст, енголпие и панагия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Името на Българския патриарх и Светия Синод по време на богослужение се поменават от епархийските митрополити и свещенослужителите в ставропигиите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 5O. Българският патриарх/Наместник-председателят на Светия Синод няма право да решава или извършва нещо по общите дела на Църквата без решението на Светия Синод и Светият Синод няма право да решава или извършва нещо без мнението на Българския патриарх/Наместник-председателя на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 51. За нарушение на служебните права и задължения Българският патриарх, както и всеки архиерей, подлежи на църковен съд пред Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава пета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">СВЕТИ СИНОД </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ОБЩИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 52. (1) Председател на Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав е Българският патриарх.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод при отсъствие на патриарха се председателства от синодален член, когото патриархът определи с писмена заповед. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 53. (1) Светият Синод в намален състав се състои от Българския патриарх и четирима епархийски митрополити.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Членовете на Светия Синод в намален състав се определят от Светия Синод на ротационен принцип по старшинство с мандат от 6 месеца. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 54. Никой архиерей не може да откаже участие в заседание на Светия Синод в пълен или намален състав, освен поради тежка, продължителна болест, немощ или други причини, признати за основателни от Светия Синод. При неизпълнение на това задължение архиереят подлежи на църковно наказание. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 55. Никой по никаква причина не може да заседава в пълния или в намаления състав на Светия Синод, ако не е съответно техен член. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 56. Когато двама от членовете на Светия Синод в намален състав тежко заболеят, за участие в заседанията до оздравяването на единия от болните се призовава митрополитът, следващ по ротационния принцип, определен по реда на чл. 53. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 57. Правомощията на Светия Синод са: правомощия на Светия Синод в пълен състав и правомощия на Светия Синод в намален състав.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД В ПЪЛЕН СЪСТАВ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 58. Правомощията на Светия Синод в пълен състав са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. поддържа единството и общението с членовете на светата Православна църква - автокефалните и автономните Поместни православни църкви;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. има върховен надзор за запазване в точност и чистота учението на светата Православна църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. има върховен надзор за правилното, еднообразно и повсеместно извършване на светите Тайнства и други богослужебни чинопоследования и издава общи наредби за общественото и частното богослужение; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. следи да се поддържа благолепие и благочиние в църквите и достойно да се почитат светите храмове, светите обители, всички свещени здания, предназначените за богослужение предмети и църковните гробища;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. предварително да проверява и одобрява за отпечатване текстовете на Свещеното Писание, богослужебните книги и съчиненията с догматическо съдържание, определени за употреба в православните храмове, тъй също учебниците и помагалата по предмета „Закон Божий” и вероучение за българските училища, да издава и одобрява книгите по православно църковно пение; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да издава Свещеното Писание и богослужебните книги и да следи други да не издават такива книги; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да ръкополага епископи и да извършва канонически избор на епархийски митрополити;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. да приготвя и освещава св. Миро;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да подготвя канонизация и да канонизира светци, да открива мощите им и определя начина на честването им;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да прави предложение пред Църковния събор за откриване и закриване на епархии;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да преглежда решенията на Църковния събор съгласно чл. 28;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. да приема синодални наредби за устройството и управлението на Църквата в неотложни случаи и да ги внася за разглеждане в първия свикан след издаването им Църковен събор;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. да приема правилници и наредби за вътрешния ред и дисциплината в Църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. да изслушва всяка година подробно изложение на намаления състав на Светия Синод за състоянието на делата в Църквата и да взема необходимите мерки за църковното преуспяване;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. да изслушва докладите на епархийските митрополити;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. да разглежда и решава - като първа и последна църковна съдебна инстанция - дела на архиереи;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. да избира членове на дисциплинарния съд при Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. да съставя списък на достойните за архиерейски чин;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. да ревизира чрез свои членове дейността на всеки архиерей, когато намери това за необходимо;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. да разглежда жалби на архиереи и на пряко подчинени на Светия Синод длъжностни лица относно разпоредби на Светия Синод в намален състав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 21. да назначава длъжностните лица на ръководните служби в Църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 22. да помилва;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 23. да дава църковни отличия (офикии);</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 24. да прави предложения до компетентните органи за откриването на духовни училища за нуждите на Българската православна църква, съгласно законодателството и прави предложение за учебните им програми и правилници чрез министъра на образованието и науката; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 25. да насърчава църковната благотворителност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 26. изисква от архиереите, свещенослужителите, църковнослужителите и монасите да изпълняват усърдно и точно своите задължения и нарежданията на съответната духовна власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 27. определя и събира от църковните учреждения и манастирите помощи и вноски за общите нужди на Църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 28. контролира да се употребяват при общественото и частното богослужение свещи, които носят отличителния знак на Българската православна църква, утвърден по съответния ред, и да са произведени в църковна свещоливница, утвърдена с решение на Светия Синод; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 29. контролира да преуспяват духовно и материално манастирите и монашестващите в тях да живеят съгласно монашеските обети и да се подвизават в милосърдие и духовна просвета;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 30. да взема мерки за опазването на православните християни от влиянието на инославни, иноверни и противорелигиозни пропаганди и за прибиране в лоното на Църквата всички, отклонили се от нея;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 31. да одобрява откриването на училища за подготовка на клир, църковнослужители и вероучители в съответствие със законодателството; назначава и уволнява учителите и възпитателите в училищата, подчинени на Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 32. да открива специални образователни курсове за свещенослужители и пр.;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 33. да издава наредби по издирване, съхраняване, описване, прибиране и изучаване църковните старини и да поддържа църковен музей;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 34. да разрешава присъединяването на енории от една епархия към друга;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 35. да разрешава, по предложение на епархийските митрополити, откриването на енории с по-малко от определения брой православни християни;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 36. да одобрява откриването на нови епархийски манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 37. да приема дарения и завещания и да ги употребява за целите, за които са предназначени;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 38. да разрешава, по предложение на епархийския митрополит, учредяването и участието в търговски дружества на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните поделения - митрополии, църкви и манастири; да разрешава, по предложение на епархийския митрополит, учредяването на вещно право на строеж до 50 години и вещно право на ползване до 25 години върху имоти, собственост на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните поделения - митрополиите, църквите и манастирите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Решенията на Светия Синод се публикуват в „Църковен вестник” в двуседмичен срок от постановяването им;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 39. да одобрява решенията на Върховния църковен съвет; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 40. да осигурява съгласно утвърдените бюджети ежемесечните парични възнаграждения на архиереите, свещенослужителите и служителите в администрацията при Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 41. приема бюджета на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, утвърждава с решение бюджетите на митрополиите, приема бюджетите на ставропигиалните манастири, Патриаршеския катедрален ставропигиален храм-паметник „Св. Александър Невски” и духовните училища, както и на другите местни църковни поделения на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 42. утвърждава уставите на фондовете при Светия Синод и подчинените му учреждения; открива нови такива и утвърждава техните устави, устройствени правилници и бюджети;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 43. открива, прогласява и закрива ставропигиални манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 44. следи Светия Синод в намален състав да упражнява надзор върху църковните поделения, институти и сдружения и ревизира чрез определени от него лица всяко църковно-административно поделение и учреждение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 45. дава съгласие за създаване на юридически лица с нестопанска цел за подпомагане и популяризиране на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия в съответствие със Закона за вероизповеданията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 46. да преглежда, одобрява и печата свети антиминси, да издава кръщелни и венчални свидетелства, църковни марки, приходни и разходни образци и други спомагателни документи;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 47. да полага старания за изграждане и украсяване на храмове и параклиси в източноправославен стил; за запазване на източноправославната иконопис от неправославно влияние и израждане да урежда иконописен и дърворезбен контрол; да издава иконописни ръководства и ерминии, придружени с най-добрите образци на православната иконопис и ликовете на българските светци;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 48. да се грижи за поддържане и усъвършенстване на православното църковно пение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 49. да изслушва изложенията на епархийските митрополити и непосредствено подчинените му поделения, учреждения и органи и да взема необходимите мерки. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 50. да решава при необходимост въпроси от правомощията на Светия Синод в намален състав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД В НАМАЛЕН СЪСТАВ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 59. Правомощията на Светия Синод в намален състав са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да одобрява решенията на епархийските митрополити и ставропигиалните манастирски управления за ръкоположения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да взема решение за назначаване и уволняване на работниците и служителите при Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да одобрява решенията на епархийските митрополити за пенсиониране на енорийските свещеници;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. следи да се изпълняват решенията на Светия Синод и Църковния събор точно и своевременно;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да дава всяка година изложение на Светия Синод за състоянието на делата в Църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да изработва мотивирани проекти за отмяна, изменение на съществуващи или за нови църковни законоположения, наредби и правила и да ги внася за утвърждаване в Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да образува духовно съдебно следствие против провинени духовни лица;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. да разрешава спорове за компетенции между отделни църковни власти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да помилва;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да упражнява надзор върху синодалните църковни институти и сдружения и да ги ревизира чрез определени от него лица;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да ревизира, когато намери за необходимо, дейността на отделите при канцеларията на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІV</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 60. Заседанията на Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав са законни, когато присъстват повече от половината им членове и се председателстват от Българския патриарх. При отсъствие на Българския патриарх заседанията се ръководят от определен от него с писмена заповед председателстващ, а при невъзможност - Светият Синод избира един от епархийските митрополити. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 61. Заседанията на Светия Синод се свикват редовно всяка година през месец юни и месец ноември, а извънредно - когато Българският патриарх или Светият Синод намерят това за необходимо или когато се поиска от повече от половината епархийски митрополити. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 62. Светият Синод в намален състав заседава, когато това е необходимо. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 63. (1) Заседанията на Светия Синод се провеждат по определен дневен ред, който се изпраща на епархийските митрополити най-малко три дни преди заседанието. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията се приемат с мнозинство повече от половината на всички членове на Светия Синод, като при равногласие надделява мнението, за което е дал глас председателят.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Въздържане от гласуване не се допуска.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Особено мнение се допуска, ако бъде заявено и обосновано устно в заседание и се представи писмено до три дни след заседанието. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 64. В заседанията право на почин има всеки от членовете при условията и спазването на Правилника за водене на заседанията на Св. Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 65. (1) Председателят открива и закрива заседанията. Той ги ръководи учтиво и безпристрастно и бди да се пази благочиние при разискванията. Събира гласовете по реда на старшинството, като започва от най-младшия и обявява решението.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Старшинството между митрополитите се определя от деня, когато митрополитът е канонически избран на епархийската катедра, която той представлява. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 66. Членовете на Светия Синод са длъжни да се отнасят почтително към председателя си, както и едни към други. Те са длъжни да не се отклоняват от задълженията си. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 67. Когато синодален член се провини в заседание: в обръщенията си не пази нужното благоприличие, отклонява се безпричинно от задълженията си, отсъства без причини, признати за основателни от Светия Синод, не пази установения ред в заседанията, председателят му прави забележка насаме. Ако не се поправи, той му прави забележка в заседанието, а в краен случай - внася в Светия Синод предложение за наказването му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 68. Когато Българският патриарх като председател на Светия Синод прегреши против църковните канони и настоящия Устав, Светият Синод чрез своя старши член му прави учтиво подсещане да се поправи. В случай, че не се поправи, подсещане му се прави в заседание на Светия Синод. Ако и след това той не се поправи, Светият Синод взема необходимите мерки, съгласно църковните канони и настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 69. (1) За всяко заседание се води протокол, който се вписва в протоколната книга и на следващото заседание се подписва от председателя и от всички участвали в заседанието членове, след което решенията влизат в сила. Решенията се публикуват в „Църковен вестник”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията на Св. Синод, ако не противоречат на догматите и каноните на светата Православна църква, са окончателни и задължителни за членовете, клирици и миряни, на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Изпълнението на решенията на Светия Синод се осъществява чрез активната роля на неговия председател и оперативното му взаимодействие с членовете на Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел V</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 70. При Светия Синод има администрация, съставът и устройството на която се определят от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 71. (1) Администрацията на Светия Синод се ръководи от Главен секретар, който отговаря за нейната дейност и ред. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Главният секретар трябва да бъде духовно лице с висше богословско образование и достатъчна църковна подготовка.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Началник-отделите при Светия Синод подпомагат главния секретар относно делата на синодалната администрация. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава шеста</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ВЪРХОВЕН ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪВЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ВЪРХОВЕН ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪВЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 72. Върховният църковен съвет при Светия Синод се състои от: председател - епархийски митрополит, член на Светия Синод, с най-малко 5-годишно митрополитско служение, избиран от Светия Синод; двама духовници и двама миряни - постоянни членове, и по двама допълнителни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 73. (1) Кандидатът за член на Върховния църковен съвет при Светия Синод, клирик или мирянин, трябва да има: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. качествата на избираем за член на Църковния събор по чл. 2О; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. висше oбразование.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Не може да бъде член на Върховния църковен съвет лице, което е: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. съпруг или роднина по права линия без ограничения в степените, по съребрена линия или по сватовство до трета степен с друг член на Върховния църковен съвет, с член на Светия Синод или със служител в администрацията на Светия Синод; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. служител в администрацията на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните поделения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. било обявено в несъстоятелност или е било член на управителен орган на търговско дружество, прекратено поради несъстоятелност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 74. Председателят и членовете на Върховния църковен съвет при Светия Синод се избират от Светия Синод за четиригодишен период. Техният мандат може да бъде прекратен предсрочно по решение на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ И ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ВЪРХОВНИЯ ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪВЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 75. (1) Върховният църковен съвет при Светия Синод проверява бюджетите и отчетите на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите, ставропигиалните манастири, Патриаршеския катедрален ставропигиален храм-паметник „Св. Александър Невски”, духовните училища и ги представя за утвърждаване от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Върховният църковен съвет проучва въпроси, възложени му от Светия Синод и ги докладва. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 76. Решенията на Върховния църковен съвет се одобряват с решение на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 77. Заседанията на Върховния църковен съвет са законни, когато в тях вземат участие председателят и най-малко половината от членовете му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 78. Председателят открива, ръководи и закрива заседанията. При събиране на гласовете, той започва от най-младия и констатира решението. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 79. (1) Решенията се вземат с мнозинство повече от половината от всички членове. В случай на равногласие надделява гласът на председателя.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Въздържане от гласуване не се допуска. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 80. (1) За заседанията на Върховния църковен съвет се водят протоколи, които след одобрението им в заседание се подписват от председателя и членовете.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Членството във Върховния църковен съвет се прекратява при три последователни, признати за неоснователни отсъствия, системно неизпълнение на задълженията, лобиране за определени икономически субекти и интереси, облагодетелстване на лица и търговци. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава седма</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕПАРХИЙСКИ МИТРОПОЛИТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕПАРХИЙСКИ МИТРОПОЛИТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 81. (1) Епархийският митрополит като апостолски приемник има духовната, църковната и административната власт в епархията. Той има цялата пълнота на йерархическата власт в делата на вярата и нравствеността, свещенодействието и пастирската грижа.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийският митрополит управлява епархията си съгласно разпоредбите на свещените канони на Православната църква, настоящия Устав и решенията на Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) На епархийския митрополит принадлежи правото на инициатива и ръководство във всички области на епархийския живот.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Чрез епархийския митрополит се осъществява единството на православните християни и клира от епархията с Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) В осъществяването на своята дейност епархийският митрополит се подпомага от Епархийския съвет.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (6) Епархийският митрополит представлява митрополията. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 82. (1) Служението на митрополита е пожизнено. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Преместване на митрополит от една епархия в друга е забранено. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато митрополит по собствено желание и по причини, допустими от църковните канони, бъде освободен от длъжност, той носи титлата „бивш”. Светият Синод му осигурява условия за живот, отговарящи на висотата на предишното му служение.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Когато поради неизлечима болест епархийският митрополит не може да изпълнява служението си, Светият Синод назначава епископ за управляващ епархията. Той има правата и задълженията на епархийски митрополит. Управляващият епархията епископ при богослужебно чинопоследование поменава епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ИЗБИРАНЕ НА ЕПАРХИЙСКИ МИТРОПОЛИТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 83. (1) Светият Синод определя лицата, достойни за епископски чин.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Кандидатът за епископски чин трябва да има следните качества:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да е член на Българската православна църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да се отличава с правилни мисли върху православната вяра и точно спазване на установения от Църквата ред, със здрав разум, добродетелен и благочестив живот; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да бъде клирик от черното духовенство, да е живял в манастир поне три години, да е дал монашески обети и да е украсен с монашески добродетели;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да има висше православно богословско образование и да е прослужил в клира най-малко 10 години; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да е навършил 35 години и да не е по-възрастен от 70 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да не е осъждан от църковен съд. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 84. (1) Когато овдовее или се оваканти епархия, Епархийският съвет известява писмено Светия Синод, който назначава епархийски митрополит за наместник на овдовелия или овакантен престол. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наместникът на овдовелия или овакантен престол провежда избор за митрополит и управлява епархията, докато новоизбраният встъпи в длъжност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 85. (1) Светият Синод съставя измежду лица с епископски чин листа на кандидатите за митрополитския избор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наместникът на овдовялата или овакантена епархия с Епархийския съвет изпраща с окръжно писмо до всички епархийски избиратели препис от листата и ги приканва да бъдат в седалищния град на епархията в третата света неделя от издаването на окръжното, за избиране на митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Наместникът уведомява кандидатите, които живеят в епархията, че са вписани в листата и са длъжни да напуснат пределите й до деня на избора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 86. (1) В определената неделя, след светата Божествена литургия, епархийските избиратели се събират в митрополитския дом. Проверяват се пълномощията на делегатите и наместникът прогласява събранието за открито при присъствие на две трети от всички избиратели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато не се събере изискуемият кворум по ал. 1, изборът се отлага с един час, след което се провежда при присъствие на повече от половината от всички избиратели. Когато не се събере и този кворум, се определя дата за нов избор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 87. (1) След усърдна към Бога молитва наместникът обявява имената на достойните кандидати, определени от Светия Синод в избирателната листа. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Гласоподаването е тайно, с бюлетина, в която са включени имената на лицата от избирателната листа. Изборът се извършва чрез заграждане на две от имената. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Бюлетината е недействителна, когато не са спазени изискванията по ал. 2. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) За избрани се обявяват двамата кандидати, получили гласовете на повече от половината от присъстващите избиратели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Когато никой от кандидатите не получи мнозинството по ал. 4 или мнозинство е получил един от кандидатите, гласуването се повтаря до получаването на изискуемото мнозинство за двамата или за единия от кандидатите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (6) Когато кандидатите получат равен брой гласове, гласуването се повтаря. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 88. (1) За станалия избор се съставя протокол, който се вписва в протоколната книга на Епархийския съвет, подписва се от присъстващите избиратели и се потвърждава от наместника с подпис и печата на Епархийския съвет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Протокол по ал. 1, подписан от наместника и присъстващите избиратели, се изпраща до Светия Синод за произнасяне.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 89. (1) Всеки участник в избора има право да подаде жалба по редовността на избора в тридневен срок от датата на провеждането му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод се произнася с мотивирано решение в тридневен срок от получаването на жалбата. Той може да потвърди избора или да го касира. Решението на Светия Синод е окончателно.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато изборът бъде касиран по реда на ал. 2, се провежда нов избор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 90. (1) Светият Синод след одобрението на епархийския избор, в първата света неделя в храма след пристойна към Бога молитва и в присъствието на народа, с мнозинство повече от половината от членовете си избира канонически за митрополит на овдовялата или овакантена епархия един от двамата избрани кандидати. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За извършения избор се съставя Акт, който се вписва в кондиката на Светия Синод и се подписва от Българския патриарх и членовете на Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Екземпляр от Акта се предоставя на новоизбрания епархийски митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 91. (1) Новоизбраният епархийски митрополит встъпва в правата си в деня, в който Светият Синод му съобщи, че е канонически избран. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Новоизбраният епархийски митрополит се представя на Българския патриарх и заминава за епархията си.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Светият Синод препоръчва новоизбрания епархийски митрополит на паството му със синодално писмо, което се прочита във всички църкви на епархията. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 92. (1) Митрополитите на българските епархии извън пределите на България се избират по реда на утвърдените от Светия Синод устави на епархиите.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За неуредените случаи в уставите по ал. 1 се прилагат разпоредбите на настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 93. Овдовяла или овакантена епархия не трябва да остава повече от три месеца без канонически митрополит според църковните правила. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 94. (1) Епископ без епархия не се ръкополага. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод може да ръкоположи епископи за помощници на Българския патриарх като предстоятел на Българската православна църква и Софийски митрополит, както и за помощник на престарял или заболял митрополит. По искане на митрополит и по преценка на Светия Синод при необходимост за Църквата Светият Синод по изключение може да ръкоположи епископ. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Викарният епископ при богослуженията подпомага епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) В административната и стопанската област викарният епископ упражнява правомощията, които са му възложени с писмена заповед или изрично упълномощаване от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА ЕПАРХИЙСКИЯ МИТРОПОЛИТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 95. Правомощията на епархийския митрополит са: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да бъде делом и словом учител и наставник на клира и народа в епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да брани, отстоява, поддържа и разпространява православната вяра между паството си; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да бди, редовно и правилно да се проповядва от клира и да се вземат мерки за духовното просвещение на християните;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да поучава и наставлява писмено и устно клира и християните в благочестие и нравствена чистота;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да увещава и насърчава клира и християните да бъдат милостиви и благотворителни към всеки нуждаещ се;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да бди за правилното, еднообразно и редовно извършване на богослужението и за поддържането на църковното благолепие, като се грижи и за подобрение на православното църковно пение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да настоява и да дава благословение за въздигане или поправяне на църкви, параклиси и манастири и да бди те да бъдат съграждани и украсявани в православно-църковен стил, като се стараят и да се запазват църковните старини;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. да освещава църкви и манастири, построени върху терени, собственост на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия или когато в нейна полза е учредено безсрочно право на строеж;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да настоява църквите и манастирите да бъдат снабдени с църковни одежди, богослужебни книги, икони в православен стил и други принадлежности, потребни за богослужението, и да се пази в чистота и ред;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да извършва пострижения на четци и певци, монаси и монахини, да ръкополага достойни мъже за енорийски, манастирски и други свещенослужители и да издава заповеди за назначаването и освобождаването им;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да назначава и освобождава архиерейски наместници, игумени и други свещеници на специални длъжности;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. да посещава поне веднъж в годината градовете в епархията си, а селата - когато му е възможно, за преглед на църквите и за непосредствено пастирско въздействие върху клира и паството;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. да изпраща протосингела и други длъжностни лица да ревизират епархийските учреждения, манастири и църкви и служебната дейност на клира, архиерейските наместници и игумени или да изпълняват други служебни поръчения, след което да дават писмен отчет;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. да има върховното попечение и ръководство в задружната църковна дейност на клира в епархията и да свиква поне един път в годината духовенството на околийски или епархийски събрания за разглеждане и организиране на пастирската дейност на клира;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. да представя през месец април на всяка трета година изложение пред Светия Синод за епархийското си служение и дейност и състоянието на епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. да приема дарения и завещания за митрополията и да ги управлява и употребява, чрез Епархийския съвет, за целите, за които са предназначени;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. може да завежда съдебни дела относно вещни права върху недвижими имоти в интерес на църкви и епархийски манастири, както и да взема участие в такива дела;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. да повдига служебно духовно-съдебно преследване против провинени клирици и християни в епархията си и в случай на тежки и предизвикващи обща съблазън провинения; по определение на Епархийския съвет временно да отстранява обвиняемите от църковни длъжности, ако те заемат такива, докато се издаде присъда и тя влезе в законна сила. В тези случаи на църковно-наказателното дело се дава спешност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. отечески да увещава провинили се клирици и когато поради естеството на провинението и за избягване на обща съблазън е потребно непосредствено и бързо архиерейско въздействие, да налага аргос, като ги лишава от свещенослужение за не повече от 15 дни; налаганият аргос не се вписва в прослужните списъци; против аргосването може да се подаде жалба пред Светия Синод, което не спира изпълнението на наказанието;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. да внася в Епархийския съвет за разглеждане предварително подготвен бюджет и всички онези въпроси, по които иска да има мнението на съвета. За финансово-парични операции със средства на епархията задължително да взема решение с членовете на Епархийския съвет;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 21. да се отнася до Светия Синод за окончателно произнасяне по решения или постановления на Епархийския съвет, които не намира за законно и полезно да утвърди или одобри;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 22. да изпълнява разпорежданията на Светия Синод и да осъществява надзор за изпълнението на решенията от органите, които са под негово ръководство и контрол;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 23. да иска отпуск от Българския патриарх за отсъствие от епархията си за повече от 15 дни и съгласие на епархийския митрополит, в чиято епархия иска да отиде;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 24. да извършва всичко, предвидено за него от църковните правила и настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІV</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ НА МИТРОПОЛИЯТА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 96. (1) Митрополията е юридическо лице, чиито членове са църквите и манастирите като местни поделения в диоцеза на съответната епархия. Те са неотделима част от нея.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наименованието на митрополията като юридическо лице е наименованието на съответната епархия по чл. 3 и чл. 4. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Митрополията се управлява и представлява от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 97. (1) При всяка митрополия има протосингел, който се назначава от епархийския митрополит и се утвърждава от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За протосингел се назначава духовно лице с висше богословско образование и с качества, предвидени в чл. 102, т. 4.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Протосингелът е помощник на митрополита в управлението на епархията и се намира под негово пряко и непосредствено ръководство, замества го при негово отсъствие според изричните му указания. Протосингелът получава заплата по епархийския бюджет.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) При всяка митрополия има епархийски надзорник, който е духовно лице най-малко със средно богословско образование. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 98. (1) При всяка митрополия има администрация, която е администрация на епархийския митрополит и Епархийския съвет.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Администрацията на митрополията се състои от:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. секретар, който ръководи администрацията и отговаря за реда в нея;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. служители и специалисти в съответните дейности, определени по щат. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 99. (1) Секретарят на митрополията е лице с висше богословско образование. Служителите в администрацията са с образование, изисквано за съответната длъжност.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Лицата в администрацията при митрополията и архиерейските наместничества се назначават от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 100. Писмата, молбите и другите книжа по дела, подлежащи на разглеждане от Епархийския съвет, се подават до епархийския митрополит, който ги резолира за разглеждане. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава осма</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕПАРХИЙСКИ ИЗБИРАТЕЛИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 101. (1) Всяка епархия има свои духовни и мирски избиратели - по 6 от всяка духовна околия. Трима от тях са клирици и трима - миряни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийските избиратели избират: епархийските представители при избора на Българския патриарх, членовете на Църковния събор, митрополита на епархията и членовете на Епархийския съвет.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Епархийските избиратели се избират за срок от четири години. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 102. Клирик може да бъде избран за епархийски избирател при следните условия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да е клирик на епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да е на възраст не по-малко от 30 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да не е лишен по решение на църковен съд от църковни права;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да е познат с точното изпълнение на църковно-служебните си задължения, опитност, примерен живот и правдолюбие. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 103. Мирянин може да бъде избран за епархийски избирател при следните условия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да има качествата на избираем за църковен настоятел по чл. 142;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да има най-малко средно образование;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да е член на енория в епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да не е осъждан за престъпления от общ характер или за църковни провинения и простъпки - от църковен съд. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 104. Три месеца преди да изтече четиригодишният период на дейност на епархийските избиратели, Светият Синод приканва епархийските митрополити да насрочат нови избори. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 105. (1) Епархийският митрополит лично или чрез определено от него с писмена заповед духовно лице след получаване на синодалната покана разпорежда на всяко църковно настоятелство в епархията да избере от своя състав по един представител. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Избраните представители, снабдени с избирателни писма, подписани от председателя и църковните настоятели и подпечатани с църковните печати, се събират в седалището на духовната околия в третата света неделя след разпореждането на митрополита. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 106. (1) В определения ден, след света Божествена литургия, в храм в седалището на епархията, митрополитът или определено от него с писмена заповед духовно лице, а в седалищата на наместничествата - архиерейският наместник, като установи, че присъстват представителите най-малко на 2/3 от енориите, открива избирателното събрание. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато присъстват по-малко представители, събранието се отлага с един час и се открива при присъствие на повече от половината от представителите на енориите. Когато присъстващите са по-малко, събранието се отлага за следващата света неделя. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 107. (1) След откриването на избирателното събрание то определя от своя състав двама представители, които заедно с председателя съставят бюрото. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Бюрото извършва проверка на избирателните писма.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Председателят напомня изискванията на чл. 102 и чл. 103 от Устава и предлага да се състави списък на избираеми лица. Председателят и всеки представител може да посочва по няколко имена.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Списъкът на избираемите лица трябва да съдържа имената на не повече от 7 клирици и 7 миряни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 108. (1) Събранието избира от съставения списък с тайно гласоподаване трима клирици и трима миряни за епархийски избиратели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За избрани се обявяват получилите повече от половината от гласовете на присъстващите делегати. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато при първото гласуване не бъдат избрани епархийски избиратели, гласуването се повтаря, докато бъдат избрани 3 клирици и 3 миряни за епархийски избиратели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 109. За проведения избор се съставя протокол, подписан от председателя и присъстващите делегати, и се изпраща на епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 110. (1) Протоколите от изборите и подадените в седемдневен срок жалби от избиратели за допуснати нарушения на Устава при избора се разглеждат от Епархийския съвет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато Епархийският съвет установи, че изборите са редовни, митрополитът утвърждава избраните епархийски избиратели, снабдява ги с писмено удостоверение и съобщава имената им на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато се установи, че изборът в определена духовна околия е нередовен, митрополитът го касира и разпорежда да се проведе нов избор във възможно кратък срок. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 111. (1) Когато през четиригодишния си период на дейност избирател се премести в друга епархия, почине или си направи отвод, енорийският му свещеник известява писмено епархийския митрополит. Епархийският съвет прогласява за негов заместник до изтичането на четирите години следващия, избран по броя получени гласове.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато епархийски избирател изгуби качествата си като такъв през четиригодишния си период на дейност и това се установи по църковно-съдебен ред, се прилага редът по ал. 1. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) За всяка промяна епархийският митрополит уведомява Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава девета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕПАРХИЙСКИ СЪВЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕПАРХИЙСКИ СЪВЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 112. (1) Епархийският съвет се състои от: председател - митрополит или определено от него с писмена заповед духовно лице, двама клирици, двама миряни и един монашестващ - представител на епархийските манастири, определен с писмена заповед от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийският съвет съдейства на епархийския митрополит в осъществяване на архиерейската му изпълнителна власт. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) В заседанията на Епархийския съвет при разглеждане на въпроси и дела от духовно естество участват членовете клирици и един клирик от допълнителните членове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 113. (1) Клирик, избираем за член на Епархийския съвет, трябва да има най-малко средно богословско образование и качествата на избираем за епархийски избирател по чл. 102, а мирянин - качествата на избираем за епархийски избирател по чл. 103 и най-малко средно образование. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Не може да бъде член на Епархийския съвет лице, което е:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. съпруг или роднина по права линия без ограничения в степените, по съребрена линия или по сватовство до трета степен с друг член на Епархийския съвет, съответно с член на Светия Синод или със служител в администрацията на Светия Синод, митрополията, архиерейските наместничества или епархийските манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. служител в администрацията на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите, архиерейските наместничества или епархийските манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. било обявено в несъстоятелност или е било член на управителен орган на търговско дружество, прекратено поради несъстоятелност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 114. (1) Членовете на Епархийския съвет се избират за четири години. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Най-късно три месеца преди изтичането на четиригодишния период, по нареждане на Светия Синод в намален състав всеки епархийски митрополит или определено от него духовно лице с окръжно писмо нарежда епархийските избиратели да се съберат в седалището на епархията в третата света неделя от издаването на окръжното, за избиране членове на Епархийския съвет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 115. (1) В определения ден, след светата Божествена литургия, избирателите се събират в митрополитския дом. Митрополитът или определено от него с писмена заповед духовно лице открива, след молитва към Бога, избирателното събрание, когато присъстват най-малко 2/3 от избирателите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато не се събере необходимият кворум, митрополитът отлага събранието с един час и го открива, след молитва към Бога, при присъствие на повече от половината от избирателите. Когато не се събере и този кворум, събранието се отлага за следващата света неделя. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 116. (1) След откриване на събранието председателят предлага да бъдат избрани за членове на бюрото с явно гласуване и мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите един клирик и един мирянин. Председателят и избраните членове образуват бюро по провеждането на избора.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Избирателното бюро съставя списък на кандидатите за членове на Епархийския съвет по предложение на епархийските избиратели. Списъкът трябва да съдържа имената на не повече от 10 клирици и 10 миряни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 117. (1) Събранието избира членовете на Епархийския съвет от списъка на кандидатите с тайно гласоподаване и с мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато не се получи необходимото мнозинство, изборът се повтаря до избирането на епархийските съветници. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 118. (1) За избора се съставя акт в два екземпляра, които се подписват от присъстващите избиратели. Единият от екземплярите се вписва в протоколната книга, а другият се предоставя на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Писмени жалби по редовността на избора могат да бъдат подавани от всеки член на избирателното събрание в седемдневен срок от датата на избора. След изтичането на срока книжата се изпращат в Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 119. (1) Светият Синод в намален състав проверява редовността на избора. Когато установи, че изборът е редовен, го одобрява с решение, което е окончателно. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато се установи, че изборът е нередовен, Светият Синод в намален състав го касира и разпорежда нов избор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 120. Когато някой от членовете излезе от състава на Епархийския съвет, на място му се призовава неговият подгласник.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ И ЗАСЕДАНИЯ НА ЕПАРХИЙСКИЯ СЪВЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 121. Правомощията на Епархийския съвет са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да се грижи да се разпространява и запазва в чистота учението на Църквата, да се запазва и развива християнската нравственост и църковната благотворителност, да се проповядва и разяснява редовно Словото Божие и да се утвърждава във вяра и благочестие православното християнско семейство;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да следи навсякъде редовно да се извършва богослужение, да се поддържа благолепието и благочинието в храмовете и да се употребяват при обществено и частно богослужение свещи, които носят отличителния знак на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, утвърден по съответния ред;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да съставя епархийските бюджети и да ги представя на Светия Синод за утвърждаване; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да управлява общоепархийските имоти, фондове и капитали и да надзирава всички епархийски стопанства и поделения; да събира от църквите, манастирите и църковните поделения вноски за епархийски църковни нужди в размер, установен от Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да ревизира редовно на всеки три месеца, а когато намери за добре - и извънредно, сметките на епархийските касиер-счетоводители и да преглежда отчетите им за изпълнението на бюджета към момента. Отчетът се изпраща на Светия Синод за окончателна проверка от комисията по проверка на църковните отчети;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да изисква ревизия на сметките на архиерейските наместничества, църковните настоятелства, манастирите и другите епархийски поделения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да освобождава църковните настоятелства, когато не изпълняват усърдно и добросъвестно своите задължения; на мястото на отчислен църковен настоятел се назначава получилият най-много гласове подгласник; ако бъде отчислено цялото настоятелство, се назначава служебно църковно настоятелство от четирима души, предложени от председателя, които имат качествата на избираеми за църковни настоятели, с всички права и задължения на църковно настоятелство;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. да проверява и утвърждава бюджетите на църковните настоятелства и епархийските манастири, както и на всички църковни фондове и общоепархийски стопанства и поделения, и да проверява изпълнението на тия бюджети;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да разрешава сключването на придобивни сделки, договори за заем, наем, аренда, рента и други договори, с изключение на: разпоредителни сделки с недвижими имоти, договори за ипотеки, апорт в търговски дружества на недвижими имоти, собственост на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните поделения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да прави предложения до Светия Синод чрез епархийския митрополит за учредяването на вещно право на строеж за срок до 50 години и вещно право на ползване до 25 години върху имоти, собственост на митрополиите, църквите и манастирите;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. грижи се за съставянето на опис на движимите вещи и регистър на недвижимите имоти на митрополията и нейните поделения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. грижи се да се водят описи от църквите и църковните поделения за техните имоти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. следи да са снабдени с нотариални актове всички църковни имоти в епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. да изслушва отчетите за всички ревизии в епархията и да взема целесъобразни мерки за благопреуспяването на църковния живот и правилното управление в епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. контролира да се водят редовно и поддържат неповредени регистрите за кръщения, венчания и опела;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. следи да се водят служебни списъци на клириците и подробни списъци на енориите, църквите, параклисите, епархийските манастири и поделения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. да подпомага във всичко епархийския митрополит в управлението на епархията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. да иска съгласието на Светия Синод за създаване на юридически лица с нестопанска цел за подпомагане и популяризиране на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия в съответствие със Закона за вероизповеданията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. да одобрява идейните проекти за строителство на нови храмове;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. да осъществява контрол архитектурата на храмовете да бъде в източноправославен стил;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 21. да поощрява и одобрява при възможност към храмовете да се предоставят помещения за прицърковни училища и помещения за провеждане на църковни тържества и църковно-просветна дейност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 22. при Епархийския съвет може да има консултативен експертен съвет по изографисване, реставрация и консервация. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 122. (1) Заседанията на Епархийския съвет са законни, когато се председателстват от епархийския митрополит или определено от него с писмена заповед духовно лице и при участието поне на половината от членовете.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За реда на заседанията и протоколите се прилагат чл. чл. 63-65 и чл. 69. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 123. (1) Решенията на Епархийския съвет се приемат с мнозинство повече от половината от всички членове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията на Епархийския съвет се утвърждават от епархийския митрополит. При разногласия въпросът се внася за разрешаване от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава десета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">АРХИЕРЕЙСКИ НАМЕСТНИЦИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 124. Епархийският митрополит назначава със заповед архиерейските наместници и уведомява Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 125. Архиерейският наместник трябва да бъде свещеник с висше или средно образование и най-малко петгодишна безукорна енорийска служба. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 126. (1) Архиерейското наместничество е учреждение на Митрополията, което няма право на самостоятелен бюджет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Архиерейското наместничество се ръководи от назначен от митрополита архиерейски наместник, който има следните правомощия в духовната околия: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да осъществява контрол и да се грижи за чистотата и разпространяването на светата православна вяра, за правилното и редовно проповядване от страна на свещениците, за организиране на религиозно нравствена просвета и за утвърждаване на православното християнско семейство във вяра и благочестие;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да осъществява контрол за чистотата на християнските нрави и за прилагане наредбите на църковната власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да осъществява контрол за правилното, редовно и еднообразно извършване на църковното богослужение и за благолепието и благочинието на църквите в поверената му духовна околия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да осъществява контрол клириците да изпълняват точно и усърдно задълженията си;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да определя временни заместници на заболели и починали свещеници, до получаването на нареждане от епархийския си митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да осъществява контрол по строителството и ремонта на църковните здания и да взема мерки за запазване на фрески, икони, иконостаси и всички ценни църковни старини;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да посещава поне веднъж в годината всички енории в духовната околия, да изучава състоянието на църквите, техните свещени принадлежности, църковните гробища и църковните имоти, ръководството на религиозно-нравствената просвета и възпитание, службата на свещениците и дейността на църковните настоятелства;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. бележките си по ревизията във всяка енория той прави писмено в специалната ревизионна книга на църковното настоятелство, каквато има при всяко църковно настоятелство, а в митрополията докладва за констатираното;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. в края на годината да представя на епархийския митрополит писмен доклад за състоянието на духовната околия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да преглежда регистрите за кръщения, венчания и опела и приходно-разходните книги на църковните настоятелства;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да се грижи за снабдяването на свещениците и църковните настоятелства с позволителни за венчаване, свидетелства, регистри и други книжа и да се внасят ежемесечно в митрополията събраните приходи;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. да представя всеки месец в митрополията отчетна ведомост за приходите и разходите на наместничеството;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. да ревизира ежемесечно сметките на отчетните лица при наместничеството и съставения акт да изпраща в митрополията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. да води опис на вещите на наместничеството;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. да свиква - с одобрението на епархийския митрополит - клириците от околията за братско обсъждане на въпроси из пастирската практика и взаимопомощ, за намиране средства за поддържане и засилване на вярата, нравствеността, духовната просвета и частната благотворителност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. да изпълнява разпорежданията на епархийския митрополит и да осъществява контрол за изпълнението им. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 127. При отсъствие на архиерейския наместник го замества енорийски свещеник, определен с писмена заповед от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 128. При всяко архиерейско наместничество има канцелария. Длъжностните лица в канцеларията се назначават от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава единадесета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕНОРИИ И СВЕЩЕНОСЛУЖИТЕЛИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕНОРИИ И СВЕЩЕНОСЛУЖИТЕЛИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 129. (1) Енорията е най-малката административно-териториална единица в съответната епархия в диоцеза на Българската православна църква и включва определен брой православни християни, постоянно пребиваващи на съответната територия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Енорията се образува съобразно местните демографски условия по предложение на епархийския митрополит и с решение на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 130. (1) Енорията се състои от не по-малко от 50 православни християни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато броят на православните християни е под определения минимум по ал. 1, енорията се присъединява към най-близката енория с изискуемия брой енориаши по предложение на епархийския митрополит и с решение на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Една църква може да има няколко енории. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 131. Свещеник без енория или определено назначение не се ръкополага. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 132. За да бъде ръкоположен някой за дякон или свещеник, трябва да има следните качества:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да е член на Българската православна църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да е български гражданин;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да е навършил 23 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да е завършил богословско училище;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да представи свидетелство от енорийския свещеник на родното си място, или от другите места, където е живял, че е благочестив, с добро поведение, че се отличава с правилни мисли за православната вяра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да носи свидетелство от духовника си, че като се е изповядал, няма по свещените правила никакво препятствие да бъде ръкоположен;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да не е осъждан за престъпления от общ характер или за църковни провинения и простъпки - от църковен съд;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. да представи медицинско свидетелство, че е здрав и не се води на отчет в психодиспансера по местоживеене, не страда от неизлечимо инфекциозно заболяване и епилепсия, както и че няма важен телесен недостатък;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да представи нотариално заверено писмено изявление, че двамата със съпругата му са в първи църковен и граждански брак, а от съпругата си - че е съгласна той да бъде ръкоположен и че ще го следва там, където длъжността му като свещенослужител го задължава да живее;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да подпише клетвено обещание, че като клирик ще пази и изповядва точно православната вяра, ще се подчинява на повеленията на църковните правила и на разпоредбите на своето духовно началство и точно ще съблюдава установения от Църквата богослужебен ред;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да не е член на политическа партия или антиправославна организация; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. за задграничните български епархии могат да бъдат ръкополагани и небългарски граждани. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 133. (1) Когато постъпи молба от лице, което желае да приеме свещенически сан, епархийският митрополит проверява приложените към нея документи по чл. 132 и като се увери, че са редовни, внася преписката за разглеждане в Епархийския съвет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Кандидатът полага изпит пред Епархийския съвет по одобрена от Светия Синод програма. Когато изпитът приключи успешно, Епархийският съвет приема кандидатурата на лицето за свещенически сан и изпраща преписката в Светия Синод за одобрение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 134. (1) Светият Синод в намален състав преди да прегледа по същество кандидатската преписка, публикува в „Църковен вестник” съобщение с името на кандидата и митрополията, която го предлага.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато в едномесечен срок не се получи основателно канонично обвинение или писмени доказателства, опровергаващи представените документи, изискуеми по чл. 132, Светият Синод в намален състав одобрява преписката и я връща на епархийския митрополит. Епархийският митрополит възлага на съответния архиерейски наместник или на друго духовно лице да подготви кандидата за ръкоположение според изискванията на свещените канони, след което го ръкополага. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) След ръкоположението на свещеника, извършено по ал. 2, епархийският митрополит издава заповед за назначението му, която съдържа длъжността, на която се назначава, мястото на назначението, размера на възнаграждението и други условия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Когато се представи доказателство за нарушение изискванията на Устава или основателно канонично обвинение, Светият Синод в намален състав връща преписката на епархийския митрополит и кандидатът не се ръкополага.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА СВЕЩЕНОСЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 135. Енорийският свещеник има следните права и задължения:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да отслужва по установения църковен ред редовно и с подобаващо благочиние светата Литургия и ежедневното църковно правило и да извършва тайнствата и чинодействията, установени от Православната църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да се грижи за добрия ред, благоговейното, точно и ясно четене и пеене при богослужението, чистотата и благолепието на храма и църковните гробища, за доброто състояние на одеждите, книгите и други църковни принадлежности и за запазване църковните старини;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. редовно да проповядва и да поучава енориашите си в истините на православната вяра и християнската нравственост; енорийският свещеник с благословението на епархийския митрополит може да допуска мирянин, познат по своята подготовка, правомислие, църковност и благонравие, да проповядва във време на частно и обществено богослужение; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да запознава енориашите си със задълженията им като членове на Църквата и да ги обучава в Закон Божий и чрез църковни поучения и беседи;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да пази с пастирско усърдие енориашите си от инославни и иноверни пропаганди;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да се грижи за духовното преуспяване на енориашите си, да ги посещава, да ги увещава редовно да посещават богослужението, да се изповядват и достойно чрез пост и молитва да се подготвят за приобщаване със Светите Тайни, да кръщават навреме децата си и да ги възпитават в православен дух;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да се грижи членовете на енорията му да изпълняват църковните разпоредби;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. със съдействието на църковното настоятелство да насърчава християнското добротворство;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да се явява на събрания, свикани по нареждане на епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да води редовно и да пази неповредени регистрите за кръщения, венчания и опела, да издава от тях извлечения и да изпраща на епархийския митрополит чрез съответния архиерейски наместник статистически данни за случилите се в енорията кръщения, венчания и опела;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да поддържа и съхранява в изправност служебната енорийска архива;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. да контролира църковните служители в храма и енорията и при неизправност да съобщава на църковното настоятелство или ако е необходимо, да уведомява по-висшата църковна власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. да извършва проверки по възложение на епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. да се грижи за църковните имоти и за тяхното увеличаване;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. да живее в енорията си или с разрешение на епархийския митрополит - и извън нея;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. да не напуска енорията си без разрешение на епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. енорийският свещеник се отнася до епархийския митрополит чрез архиерейския наместник; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. да изпълнява своевременно и точно нарежданията на духовното си началство;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. да се ползва с правата на служението и сана си съгласно църковните правила, настоящия Устав и други синодални наредби при условие, че правата не са му отнети по църковно-съдебен ред; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. да изпълнява точно, добросъвестно и усърдно задълженията си по служба и сан, определени от църковните правила и настоящия Устав, и при нарушение на задълженията си да отговаря по съответния църковно-дисциплинарен и църковно-съдебен ред;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 21. да получава за служението си ежемесечно парично възнаграждение от Светия Синод в размер, определен на основата на размера на осигурителния праг, установен в бюджета на държавното обществено осигуряване за съответната година. Определеното по този ред възнаграждение не може да бъде по-малко от минималния осигурителен праг; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 22. свещенослужителите могат да ползват жилище в църковно-енорийския дом и обработваема земя според местните условия и потребности, за което епархийският митрополит може да задължи църковното настоятелство;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 23. да организира църковно училище и да следи за изпълнението на синодалната програма за обучение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 23. енорийският свещеник може да извършва свещенодействия и треби в друга енория със съгласието на местния енорийски свещеник или с писмено разпореждане на епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 136. Свещениците, които не са на енорийска служба при храм, имат правата и задълженията съответно по чл. 135. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 137. Дяконите са помощници на архиерея и свещеника в тяхната служба и имат всички общоклирически права и задължения според църковните правила. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 138. (1) Когато клирик или монашестващ желае да премине на служение в друга епархия, подава молба до съответния епархийски митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийският митрополит, получил молбата по ал. 1, отправя писмо до епархийския митрополит на молителя, който при съгласие издава заповед за освобождаване и отпусно свидетелство.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Документите по ал. 2 се изпращат на приемащия епархийски митрополит, който уведомява Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 139. (1) На клирици и монашестващи е забранено да заемат длъжности и да поемат задължения в държавни и местни органи на власт, да участват в партийна дейност и предизборна кампания, както и да се кандидатират за органи на европейско, държавно и местно ниво. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) На клирици и монашестващи е забранено да имат държание, несъвместимо с техния сан и подронващо авторитета на Църквата.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) На клирици и монашестващи е забранено да се регистрират като еднолични търговци, да бъдат съдружници в персонални търговски дружества, еднолични собственици на капитала в дружества с ограничена отговорност и акционерни дружества, както и прокуристи, управители и членове на съветите на директорите, управителните и надзорните съвети на търговски дружества, в които Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните местни поделения не са еднолични собственици на капитали на търговски дружества или не притежават 50 на сто от капитала на дружеството. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава дванадесета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКВА И ЦЪРКОВНО НАСТОЯТЕЛСТВО </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКВА И ЦЪРКОВНО НАСТОЯТЕЛСТВО </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 140. (1) Църквата е обединение на православните християни от една или повече енории, където се намира храмът.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Църквата е юридическо лице, което е местно поделение на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и на съответната митрополия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Наименованието на църквата като юридическо лице е наименованието на съответния храм.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Църквата се управлява от църковно настоятелство, което се състои от 4-6 души и се представлява пред компетентните органи от енорийския свещеник, който е председател на църковното настоятелство. В определени случаи по решение на настоятелството председателят може да упълномощава и други лица да го представляват. В своята дейност настоятелството се подпомага от прицърковни организации, като православни християнски братства и други. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Член на църквата като юридическо лице е всеки православен християнин, който живее в енорията, където се намира съответният храм, и е вписан в списъка на църквата срещу лични данни, адрес и подпис. Кръщелното свидетелство е удостоверение за лицето, че е православен християнин.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (6) Списъкът на членовете на църквата се проверява и актуализира редовно на всеки четиригодишен период преди провеждане на избирателното събрание за избор на църковни настоятели и при необходимост - в края на всяка календарна църковна година.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (7) Църквата като юридическо лице за новостроящи се храмове възниква от влизане в сила решението на Епархийския съвет, с което се утвърждава църковното настоятелство.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (8) Епархийските митрополити извършват освещаването на църкви и параклиси (освен ако параклисите не са в болници, затвори, училища и други обществени учреждения) след прехвърлянето на собствеността им на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните поделения. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 141. (1) Председател на църковното настоятелство по право е енорийският свещеник. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) При църква с повече от един енорийски свещеник председателят на църковното настоятелство се назначава със заповед от епархийския митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) При отсъствие на председателя епархийският митрополит издава заповед за заместването му от свещеник, който завежда и енорията му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 142. (1) За член на църковното настоятелство може да бъде избран всеки български гражданин, който отговаря на следните условия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да е кръстен православен християнин;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да е член на съответната енория;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да е навършил 30 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да не е осъждан за престъпления от общ характер или за църковни провинения и простъпки - от църковен съд;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да е запознат с основните истини на православната вяра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да е познат по своя благочестив и честен живот.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Кандидатът за член на църковното настоятелство подава заявление и декларация до председателя по образци, утвърдени от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Не може да бъде член на църковното настоятелство лице, което е:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. съпруг или роднина по права линия без ограничения в степените, по съребрена линия или по сватовство до трета степен с председателя, с друг член на църковното настоятелство, с касиера, свещопродавачите или лице, назначено на щатна длъжност в църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. било обявено в несъстоятелност или е било член на управителен орган на търговско дружество, прекратено поради несъстоятелност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 143. (1) Светият Синод всяка четвърта година приканва епархийските митрополити да се разпоредят за провеждането на избори за църковни настоятелства в определен неделен ден през месец ноември.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато избори не бъдат проведени в определения ден, епархийският митрополит определя друг неделен ден за провеждането им.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато изборите не са проведат и във втората определена неделя, епархийският митрополит назначава настоятелство от четирима енориаши, имащи качества за избираеми за църковни настоятели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 144. (1) Едновременно с избирането на църковното настоятелство се избира и проверителна комисия от 3 до 5 членове, имащи качествата за църковни настоятели по чл. 142.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) След утвърждаването на новоизбраните настоятели, проверителната комисия проверява сметките по приходо-разхода на църквата за времето, през което е служило старото църковно настоятелство. Протоколът се подписва от комисията, от старото и новото църковно настоятелство и се изпраща в митрополията. Епархийският съвет разглежда протокола и с постановление се произнася за освобождаването от отговорност на старото църковно настоятелство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 145. (1) Служебният период на църковните настоятелства е четиригодишен.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато през периода по ал. 1 член от настоятелството се премести, бъде отчислен или почине, за негов заместник до изтичането на четирите години се прогласява следващият, избран по броя получени гласове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 146. (1) Избиратели могат да бъдат всички български граждани, православни християни, членове на църквата в съответната енория, навършили 18 години.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Записването в списъка с имената на избирателите трябва да приключи до вечерната служба преди деня на избора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 147. (1) Събранието за избиране на църковно настоятелство се открива след света Литургия в определения от епархийския митрополит ден и продължава до 14 часá. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Събранието се ръководи от бюро от четирима енориаши, избрани с явно гласоподаване и мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите. Председателят на църковното настоятелство е председател и на бюрото и ръководи събранието.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) В съставни енории, където се избират повече от едно църковно настоятелство, енорийският свещеник председателства избора в центъра на енорията, а в другите села упълномощава за свой заместник по един грамотен енориаш, имащ право на избираем за църковен настоятел. Името на заместника се отбелязва в избирателния протокол, а за даденото пълномощно енорийският свещеник съобщава на епархийския си митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Събранието се открива след усърдна към Бога молитва, когато присъстват поне 2/3 от записаните в избирателните списъци енориаши. Когато в определения час няма изискуемия кворум, събранието се отлага с 30 минути, след което се открива при кворум повече от половината от енориашите, вписани в избирателните списъци. Когато не се събере и този кворум, събранието се отлага за следващата света неделя и се провежда при същите условия и ред. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) По предложение на бюрото се изготвя листа с имената на кандидатите за църковни настоятели, подали заявление и декларация до председателя на църковното настоятелство най-късно седем дни преди датата за провеждане на избора.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (6) Бюлетината с имената на кандидатите се представя на избирателите, след което се пристъпва към тайно гласоподаване. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (7) Църковните настоятели се избират с мнозинство повече от половината от присъстващите избиратели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 148. (1) За проведения избор на църковно настоятелство и проверителна комисия се съставя протокол, подписан от членовете на бюрото и подпечатан с църковния печат, а където няма църква - с печата на председателстващия свещеник. Протоколът и изборните книжа се изпращат на епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Жалби по редовността на избора могат да се подават до епархийския митрополит в седемдневен срок от деня на избора.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Епархийският митрополит утвърждава произведения избор, когато Епархийският съвет е разгледал изборните книжа и е установил, че са редовни. Когато се установи, че изборът е нередовен, епархийският митрополит разпорежда провеждането на нов избор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 149. (1) В имуществото на църквата като юридическо лице се включват:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. храмът (зданието) и принадлежностите му, както и други храмове и параклиси към него;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. движими вещи и недвижими имоти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. сумите, постъпили в храма от различни източници, като: свещи, дискоси, приходи от движими и недвижими имоти и други;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. дарения за благоустройството и потребностите на храма и енорията, както и движими и недвижими имоти, завещани в полза или собственост на храма, включително и със специално предназначение за благотворителни и просветни цели, за издръжка на клира и други;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. суми от митрополиите, църковно-енорийски дарения, такси и други.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Църквата като юридическо лице може да учредява еднолични търговски дружества и да участва в търговски дружества по ред, определен в настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 150. (1) Църква, която е без енория, се управлява от настоятелство, назначено от епархийския митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Гробищна църква без енория се управлява от местното църковно настоятелство, а при повече енорийски църкви в населеното място епархийският митрополит назначава свещеник за председател на църковното настоятелство и по негово предложение четиричленно настоятелство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 151. (1) Към енорията принадлежат лицата от православно вероизповедание, които живеят в границите на енорията и запазват и поддържат жива връзка с енорийския храм, клир и живот.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Енориашите, членове на църквата, имат всички общи църковни права и задължения, както и предвидените в настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 152. Отнемането или ограничаването на църковни права става по църковно-съдебен ред. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 153. (1) Православните християни енориаши, членове на църквата като местно поделение на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия са длъжни: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. точно, твърдо и неизменно да изповядват православната вяра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да посещават богослужението, да се изповядват, да се подготвят с пост и молитва и причастяват редовно;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да съдействат за благосъстоянието на енорията в религиозно-нравствено отношение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да участват в религиозния живот на енорията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да се грижат по издръжката на църквата и клира; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да спазват правилата на Православната църква. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Християните са длъжни да спазват правилата за единство и неделимост на Светото Православие, на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и на нейните местни поделения. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА ЦЪРКОВНИТЕ НАСТОЯТЕЛСТВА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 154. Църковното настоятелство има следните права и задължения:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да сключва придобивни сделки, договори за заем, наем и други договори, с изключение на: разпоредителни сделки с недвижими имоти, договори за ипотеки, апорт на недвижими имоти в търговски дружества, собственост на съответната църква, с писмено съгласие на Епархийския съвет, утвърдено от епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да прави предложения до епархийския митрополит за учредяването на вещно право на строеж за срок до 50 години и вещно право на ползване до 25 години върху имоти, собственост на съответната църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. грижи се да увеличава средствата на храма;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. събира установените църковно-енорийски такси, както и сумите, постъпили в храма от продажба на свещи, дискоси, приходи от движими вещи и недвижими имоти, по решение на Епархийския съвет, утвърдено от епархийския митрополит, внася част от тях в бюджета на митрополията за заплати на свещениците;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. прави предложение пред епархийския митрополит и се грижи за изграждането на храм, параклис, помощни сгради и други;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. настоява пред компетентните органи за съграждане на църковни гробища, както и за ограждането, чистотата, реда и благолепието на църковните гробища;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. приема - с одобрение на епархийския митрополит - дарения и завещания и придобива по други законни начини движими и недвижими имущества в полза на църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. грижи се всички недвижими църковни имоти да имат нотариални актове, планове и скици и взема мерки да се пазят границите на земеделските, горските и други имоти чрез постоянни неподвижни знаци;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. съставя бюджета на храма и го изпраща за утвърждение от Епархийския съвет;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. следи за редовното изпълнение на църковния бюджет;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. води опис на църковните имущества;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. взема решения и с одобрение от епархийския митрополит завежда дела пред съдилищата и упълномощава лица, които да го представляват при извършването на нотариални действия; завежда съдебни дела относно вещни права върху недвижими имоти след съгласието на епархийския митрополит и го уведомява за заведените срещу него съдебни дела относно вещни права върху недвижими имоти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. грижи се за благолепието на храма и за доброто състояние и осигуряване на църковните имоти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. застъпва се пред компетентните органи да не се откриват около храма и на разстояние по-близо от 100 м търговски и туристически обекти, питейни, увеселителни и развлекателни заведения, както и да не се развиват дейности, които противоречат на православната вяра, църковния живот и традиция;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. грижи се да се набавят свещи от църковна свещоливница, икони и потреби за храма и за богослужението от църковните (синодални и епархийски) магазини;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. осигурява за храма икони, съсъди и предмети с художествено значение с предварителното им одобрение от епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. грижи се със съдействието на богомолците за благочинието при богослужението;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. назначава при храма помощен персонал, а с одобрението на епархийския митрополит - дякони, певци, певчески хор и други църковни служители и се грижи за тяхната издръжка;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. може да отпуска по бюджета стипендии или помощи на младежи за подготовка на певци и клирици;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. определя на църковни служители, чиято издръжка е по това занятие, заплата или възнаграждение по щат, в съответствие с техния служебен и образователен ценз;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 21. подпомага материално свещенослужителите при храма при необходимост и възможност, с одобрение на епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 22. води изборните списъци на енориашите;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 23. дава на епархийския митрополит в края на всяка година писмен отчет за дейността си;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 24. оказва морално и материално съдействие на свещениците при храма в тяхната просветна и благотворителна дейност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 155. Свещеникът - председател на църковното настоятелство, открива, ръководи и закрива заседанията. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 156. (1) Заседанията на църковното настоятелство са законни, когато са свикани от председателя или заместващия го и присъстват повече от половината от членовете му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията се вземат с мнозинство повече от половината от всички членове на настоятелството. При равногласие надделява гласът на председателя или заместващия го. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 157. Председателят на храма съставя график за богослужението и разпределя служебните задължения на свещенослужителите към храма и контролира изпълнението. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 158. (1) Църковното настоятелство избира касиер, който се одобрява от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Касиерът приема приходите и извършва разходите, според бюджета, и се отчита пред църковното настоятелство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 159. Длъжността църковен настоятел е почетна и неплатена. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 160. (1) Църковното настоятелство води летописна книга.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) В летописната книга се записват по-важни събития, свързани с живота на храма и енорията, имената на църковните благодетели и на църковните настоятели, за които епархийският митрополит прецени, че са се отличили с честно и усърдно служение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Имената на записаните в летописната книга се споменават в църквата при богослужението на Неделя Православна. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава тринадесета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">МАНАСТИРИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">МАНАСТИРИ И МОНАСИ/МОНАХИНИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 161. (1) Манастир е свещено място с храм и други здания, предназначени за жилища на монаси или монахини, т. е. лица, които с обетите си за целомъдрие, нестяжателност и послушание са се посветили на уединен благочестив живот и упражняване в християнските добродетели, на подвижничество (въздържание, молитва и труд), милосърдие и духовна просвета.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Манастирите са местни поделения на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и на съответните митрополии и са юридически лица.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Манастирът се управлява от Манастирски събор или в предвидените от Устава случаи - от игумен/игуменка. Манастирът се представлява от игумена/игуменката. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) В манастир, в който няма назначен игумен/игуменка, епархийският митрополит назначава за изпълняващ длъжността подходящо духовно лице. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 162 (1) Манастирите са ставропигиални и епархийски. Ставропигиалните са подчинени на Светия Синод, а епархийските - на местния епархийски митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Ставропигиални манастири се основават или прогласяват по решение на Светия Синод. Епархийски манастири се основават с благословението на епархийския митрополит и одобрението на Светия Синод, ако са осигурени средства за издръжката им.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Ставропигиални манастири са: Рилският, Бачковският и Троянският. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 163. Манастир, който има най-малко 5 братя/сестри, се управлява от манастирски събор под председателството и ръководството на игумен/игуменка. Манастир с по-малко от 5 братя/сестри се управлява от игумен/игуменка, назначен/назначена от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 164. (1) Манастирският събор се състои от игумена/игуменката и 4 или 6 монаси/монахини, отличаващи се с примерен живот и опитност. Манастирският събор се председателства от игумена/игуменката. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Манастирският събор се избира от монасите/монахините и се утвърждава от Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири, а от епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 165. За игумен/игуменка може да бъде избран член на манастирското братство/сестринство, когато притежава необходимите религиозно-нравствени качества и опитност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 166. (1) Игуменът/игуменката се избира от монасите/монахините с мнозинство повече от половината от всички членове на манастирското братство/сестринство.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Изборът на игумен/игуменка се утвърждава с решение, за ставропигиалните манастири - от Светия Синод, а за епархийските - от епархийския митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато игумен/игуменка по собствено желание се оттегли, но само по причини, допустими от църковните канони, се провежда избор за нов игумен/игуменка. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Когато игумен/игуменка поради продължителна болест, немощ или неопитност не е в състояние да изпълнява задълженията си и това причинява вреди в духовната и материалната сфера, до утвърждаването на нов игумен/игуменка манастирът се представлява от духовно лице, назначено от съответната църковна власт, на основание утвърдените от Светия Синод вътрешни правилници и устави. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 167. Когато братството/сестринството на два пъти последователно избере и представи за утвърждаване лице, неподходящо да изпълнява игуменска длъжност, съответната църковна власт назначава игумен/игуменка, който/която управлява манастира, докато братството/сестринството избере достойно лице. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 168. За манастир, който е останал без монаси/монахини или няма възможност да се издържа, епархийският митрополит решава - с одобрението на Светия Синод - да бъде присъединен временно или завинаги към друг манастир. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 169. Монах/монахиня може да живее извън манастира само в случаите, когато е назначен/назначена на определена длъжност или изпратен/изпратена на специално послушание по решение на Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири, и на епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 170. (1) За монах или монахиня може да бъде постригано лице, което отговаря на следните условия:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да е навършил пълнолетие, съгласно законите в страната;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да е православен християнин;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да не е встъпил в брак или да е с прекратен граждански брак поради развод или смърт и да няма задължения за издръжка;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да не се води на отчет в психодиспансера по местоживеене и да не страда от неизлечимо инфекциозно заболяване и епилепсия;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да е благочестив, с добро поведение и да се отличава с правилни мисли за православната вяра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да е преминал срока на изпитание, предвиден в Устава на манастира.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Изискванията по ал. 1 се удостоверяват със съответните писмени документи - удостоверения, свидетелства, декларации.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Който иска да встъпи в монашески чин, трябва да представи молба, автобиография, свидетелство за съдимост и препоръка от енорийския си свещеник или изповедник.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Преди встъпването в монашески чин кандидатът е длъжен да се разпореди по волята си и според закона със своето имущество. Всичко, което придобие след встъпването му в монашество, принадлежи на манастира, в който е брат/сестра.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОМОЩИЯ НА МАНАСТИРСКОТО УПРАВЛЕНИЕ - </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">МАНАСТИРСКИ СЪБОР И ИГУМЕН </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 171. Манастирският събор и игуменът имат следните правомощия: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. да се грижат монасите да водят благочестив живот, съобразен с обетите им на целомъдрие, нестяжание и послушание и според общоцърковните и вътрешни манастирски наредби да се упражняват в християнските добродетели, в подвижничество, милосърдие и духовна просвета;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. да се грижат монасите да пребъдват във въздържание и молитва, да посещават редовно богослужението, да изучават Свещеното Писание, творенията на светите Отци, живота на светиите, да се занимават с християнска книжнина, да водят чист и непорочен живот, да вземат чрез физически труд редовно участие в манастирските стопанства и с дух на монашеско послушание и сърдечна преданост да изпълняват възложените им служби в богоугодните и просветни заведения на манастира и да пребивават неотлъчно в светата си обител;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. да следят да се отслужва редовно богослужението според манастирския устав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. да следят да се пази благоговеен ред в църквата, да се поддържа благолепието на храма, да се пазят в изправност и чистота свещените предмети и места, църковните старини, библиотеката и всички манастирски помещения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. да следят да се пази в светата обител строг манастирски ред, съответстващ на целите на манастира и на монашеския начин на живот;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. да подготвят и приемат достойни манастирски братя, като се спазват монашеските правила и всички други изисквания на манастирския устав.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. да искат предварително разрешение от епархийския митрополит за пострижението на монах или монахиня - за епархийски манастир, или от Светия Синод - за ставропигиален манастир;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. да представят благоговейни и достатъчно просветени манастирски братя за ръкополагане в дяконски и йеромонашески чин;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. да определят послушание на манастирските братя;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. да пазят в добро състояние манастирските здания, храмове, метоси и манастирския имот;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. да приемат дарения и завещания за манастира;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. да снабдяват братята с всичко необходимо за живеене;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. да прибират като манастирски имот останалото от починал или разстриган манастирски брат/сестра, според църковните правила;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. да стопанисват и управляват манастирските имоти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. да съставят бюджет за манастирските приходи и разходи и да го изпращат на съответната духовна власт за утвърждаване;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. да осигуряват приходната част на манастирския бюджет и да внасят сумите, определени от Светия Синод или епархийския митрополит;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. да следят за редовното изпълнение на бюджета и след приключването му да дават отчет пред Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири или пред епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. да проверяват всеки три месеца манастирските сметки, като съставят актове, които да изпращат на съответната духовна власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. да сключват придобивни сделки, договори за заем, наем и други договори с изключение на: разпоредителни сделки с недвижими имоти, договори за ипотеки, апорт на недвижими имоти в търговски дружества, собственост на съответния манастир, с решение на Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири, и писмено съгласие на Епархийския съвет, утвърдено от епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. да правят предложение до Светия Синод за ставропигиалните манастири и до Епархийския съвет за епархийските манастири за учредяването на вещно право на строеж за срок до 50 години и вещно право на ползване до 25 години върху имоти, собственост на съответния манастир;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 21. да правят предложение до Светия Синод за ставропигиалните манастири и до Епархийския съвет за епархийските манастири за учредяването на еднолични търговски дружества и участие в търговски дружества по ред, определен от настоящия Устав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 22. да съставят опис на движимите имущества на манастира, да се грижат недвижимите имоти да имат нотариални и други актове за собственост, да представят сведения и документи за недвижимите имоти на манастира за вписване в регистъра на недвижимите имоти на митрополиите и Централния регистър на недвижимите имоти на Светия Синод, както и същите да бъдат вписани в основните данъчни и кадастрални книги; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 23. вземат решения и с одобрение на Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири, и от епархийския митрополит за епархийските манастири, завеждат дела пред съдилищата в държавата; завеждат съдебни дела относно вещни права върху недвижими имоти със съгласието на епархийския митрополит за епархийските манастири и на Светия Синод за ставропигиалните манастири и ги уведомяват за заведените срещу тях съдебни дела относно вещни права за недвижими имоти.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 24. да разглеждат по църковно-съдебен ред повдигнатите от игумена/игуменката, от епархийския митрополит или от Светия Синод обвинения срещу църковно провинен/-а манастирски брат/сестра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 25. да внасят установените вноски за общоцърковни и епархийски потребности;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 26. да бдят за точното изпълнение на древните правила на монашеството, църковните правила, манастирския устав и разпорежданията на духовната власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 27. да се застъпват пред компетентните органи да не се откриват около манастира и на разстояние по-близо от 500 метра търговски и туристически обекти, питейни, увеселителни и развлекателни заведения, както и да не се развиват дейности, които противоречат на православната вяра, църковния живот и традиция;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 28. да дават ежегодно на съответната духовна власт писмен отчет за общото състояние на манастира. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 172. (1) Игуменът/игуменката на манастира е: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. председател на манастирския събор;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. изпълнител на съборните решения; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. духовен ръководител на монасите/монахините; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. пазител на манастирските и църковни правила и на разпорежданията на духовната власт.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато няма игумен/игуменка, манастирът се представлява от духовно лице, изпълняващо длъжността игумен/игуменка по чл. 161, ал. 4, или от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато в манастира няма монаси/монахини, той се управлява от манастирско настоятелство, назначено от епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Членовете на манастирското настоятелство трябва да отговарят на условията за църковни настоятели по чл. 142. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Манастирското настоятелство има правомощията на манастирския събор с изключение на правомощията му на църковен съд. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 173. (1) Съборните старци - членове на манастирския събор, не могат да решават въпроси и извършват дейности без мнението на игумена и последният - без решението на събора. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) При разногласия между игумена и манастирския събор въпросът се отнася за решаване от Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири и от епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Решенията по ал. 2 на манастирския събор (манастирското настоятелство) влизат в сила от влизането в сила решенията на Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири, и от епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 174. Когато в епархия няма монахини или поради невъзможност не могат да участват в работата на органите, на които са членове, те се заместват от монаси. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 175. Всеки манастир си изработва Устав за вътрешния ред, който се утвърждава от Светия Синод - за ставропигиалните манастири, и от епархийския митрополит - за епархийските манастири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЧАСТ ВТОРА</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВЕН СЪД</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава първа</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ОБЩИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">УСТРОЙСТВО </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 176. (1) Съдебната власт в Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се упражнява от:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. епархийските съдилища;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. манастирските събори.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Лица и органи извън системата на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия не могат да осъществяват функциите на църковен съд.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Съдебната власт в Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се основава на църковните канони, настоящия Устав и наредбите на църковното съдопроизводство, издадени от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Отговорността пред съд в държавата по закон не изключва отговорността пред църковен съд по този Устав.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Църковният съд има право при необходимост да иска съдействие от органите на държавната власт за изпълнение на влезлите в сила решения. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 177. (1) Юрисдикцията на Светия Синод като съд се разпростира в диоцеза на Българската православна църква-Българска Патриаршия в епархиите на територията на Република България, както и в тези извън нейните предели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Юрисдикцията на епархийския съд се разпростира в пределите на съответната епархия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Юрисдикцията на манастирския събор се разпростира по отношение на манастирските братя/сестри. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 178. (1) Епархийският съд се състои от епархийския митрополит и духовните членове на Епархийския съвет. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Съдът заседава под председателството на епархийския митрополит. При отсъствие на епархийския митрополит или на член на съда, епархийският митрополит с писмена заповед назначава духовно лице за председател или член на състава. Съставът се попълва от редовно избраните духовници - подгласници. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 179. Манастирският събор действа като съд и разглежда дела по обвинения, повдигнати срещу църковно провинени манастирски братя/сестри. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 180. (1) В състава на един и същи църковен съд не могат да заседават и вземат решения длъжностни лица, които са: роднини по права линия във възходяща и низходяща степен, съребрена линия до четвърта степен включително, по сватовщина до трета степен и духовно родство от първа степен.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) При условията по ал. 1 за редовен член на съда той се заменя с негов подгласник. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПОДВЕДОМСТВЕНОСТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 181. На църковните съдилища са подведомствени:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. църковно-наказателните дела;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. делата по църковни спорове;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. жалбите против актове и решения на църковно-административните органи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 182. (1) На Светия Синод са подсъдни: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. делата против архиереи; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. жалби против първоинстанционни решения на Светия Синод в намален състав; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. жалби против административни актове и решения на Светия Синод в намален състав;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. решения на църковни съдилища за низвержение, отлъчване от Църквата и анатема.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод като съд заседава в състав не по-малко от две трети от членовете си и се председателства от Българския патриарх или от митрополит, определен от него с писмена заповед.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) По дела на архиереи Светият Синод заседава в състав не по-малко от 13 епархийски митрополити. Когато не се събере този състав, Светият Синод с решение го попълва с архиереи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Решенията на Светия Синод като съд са окончателни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 183. (1) На Светия Синод в намален състав са подсъдни:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. като първа инстанция - дела против игумени на ставропигиални манастири, които не са архиереи; дела против членове на Върховния църковен съвет и против членове на Епархийския съвет за провинения, извършени при изпълнение на служебните им задължения; жалби против административни актове и решения на административните органи на църковната власт; както и спорове за подсъдност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. като втора инстанция - решения на епархийските съдилища и решения на манастирските събори на ставропигиалните манастири; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод в намален състав като съд се председателства от Българския патриарх или от митрополит, определен от него с писмена заповед;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато член на състава на съда не може да участва поради уважителни причини или заинтересованост, съставът се попълва от член на Светия Синод, определен по реда на чл. 53.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Жалбите до Светия Синод в намален състав се подават в 14-дневен срок от постановяването на решението чрез църковния съд, който го е постановил. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 184. (1) На епархийския съд са подсъдни:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. като първа инстанция - делата на църковните съдилища с изключение на тези, които са подсъдни на Светия Синод в пълен и намален състав и на манастирските събори като първа инстанция;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. като втора инстанция - дела, постъпили от манастирските събори на епархийските манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Решенията на епархийския съд като втора инстанция са окончателни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 185. (1) На манастирския събор, като първа инстанция, са подсъдни дела против манастирски братя/сестри за провинения, подлежащи на църковен съд.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато в манастира няма манастирски събор, делата на манастирските братя/сестри са подсъдни на епархийския съд като първа инстанция.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Решенията на манастирския събор като съд се обжалват пред епархийския съд чрез игумена в 14-дневен срок от постановяването им. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 186. (1) Делата за църковни провинения са подсъдни на съда по местослужение на обвиняемия - за духовниците, и по настоящ адрес - за миряните.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Всеки църковен съд сам решава дали делото му е подсъдно.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Спор за подсъдност се разрешава от Светия Синод в намален състав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 187. (1) Постановените решения на църковните съдилища за низвержение и отлъчване от Църквата влизат в сила след утвърждаването им от Светия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) В случаите по ал. 1 свещеникът се отстранява от свещенослужение със заповед на епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Светият Синод разглежда решенията на църковните съдилища в двумесечен срок от постановяването им. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Светият Синод може да потвърди решението или да го измени с налагане на по-леко наказание. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Решението, с което лице с духовен сан се наказва с лишаване от право на свещенослужение или отлъчване, се публикува в „Църковен вестник“ и се уведомяват Поместните православни църкви. Решението за отлъчване на миряни се публикува в „Църковен вестник“. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 188. (1) Решенията на първоинстанционните съдилища могат да се обжалват в 14-дневен срок от постановяването им пред по-горния съд чрез съда, който ги е постановил. Срокът за обжалване тече от момента на връчване на решението на лицето, за което се отнася. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Редът за разглеждане на църковните дела се урежда в Правилник за съдопроизводството, приет от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава втора</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВНО-СЪДЕБНИ ДЕЛА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВНО-НАКАЗАТЕЛНИ ДЕЛА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> А. Църковни провинения </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 189. Църковно провинение е всяко умишлено или по непредпазливост извършено деяние против вярата, каноните, правилата на светата Православна църква и настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 190. Църковни провинения са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. отпадане от Православната църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. ерес - съзнателно, явно и упорито отричане догматите на православната вяра;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. молитвено и евхаристийно общение с инославни и иноверни;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. разкол - отделяне от църковното единство;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. магьосничество и врачуване;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. богохулство - хулни слова и действия срещу Бога, Света Троица, света Богородица и светиите;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. светотатство - поругаване, хулене, оскърбяване, повреждане, унищожаване, кражба или грабеж на място или предмети, посветени на Бога или богослужението, а също хулене, клевета, заплаха и насилие над свещенослужител при служба или друго подобно греховно деяние;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. симония - приемане или даване на духовен чин, звание или отличие срещу облаги;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. разврат - проституция и блудни деяния, включително и между еднополови;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. убийство, опит за убийство, опит за самоубийство или друго престъпно деяние;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. обида или клевета между духовни лица, срещу духовно лице или от духовно лице срещу мирянин;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 12. лъжлива клетва;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 13. отричане от сан;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 14. неизпълнение или немарливо изпълнение на църковните правила, разпорежданията на настоящия Устав, служебните задължения или законните разпореждания на църковната власт, като: неправилно, небрежно или нередовно извършване на богослужението, светите Тайнства и обредите, занемаряване на проповедта, религиозното просвещаване на енориашите и църковната благотворителност; неправилно или нередовно водене на църковно-енорийските книги и други;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 15. превишаване на власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 16. злоупотреба и немарливо пазене на църковното имущество;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 17. непристойни за сана дейности;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 18. пиянство, сквернословие и неприлично държание в служебни и частни отношения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 19. приемане на нецърковна длъжност без разрешение на съответната духовна власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 20. други простъпки и дейности, забранени от църковните правила и настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Б. Църковни наказания </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 191. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (1) Църковните наказания за духовно лице са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. глоба в размер, определен от съда, но не повече от три брутни месечни възнаграждения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. временно лишаване от свети Тайнства, обреди, участие в обществено богослужение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. временно лишаване от църковно-административни права;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. разстригване за монаси;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. аргос - пълно или частично запрещаване от свещенослужение и служба от 15 дни до 6 месеца, с лишаване от възнаграждение в размер, определен от съда, но не повече от петкратния размер на брутното му възнаграждение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. ограничаване в манастир от един месец до една година на клиросно послушание или манастирски труд и лишаване от възнаграждение в размер, определен от съда, но не повече от петкратния размер на брутното му възнаграждение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. лишаване от църковни отличия и офикии;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. освобождаване от длъжност за срок до 3 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. преместване в друга духовна околия за срок до 5 години;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. низвержение, без или със отлъчване от Църквата според каноните;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. отлъчване - изключване от общение с Църквата;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Църковното наказание „отлъчване от Църквата” за мирянин се налага за извършено тежко църковно провинение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 192. (1) Църковно-наказателната отговорност е лична.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наказанието съответства на тежестта на извършеното провинение.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Наказанието се определя в зависимост от вида на провинението, формата на вината (умисъл или непредпазливост), причинената вреда и смекчаващите и отегчаващите вината обстоятелства. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> В. Особени правила: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 193. За провинения по сан или служба духовните лица са отговорни пред църковен съд и когато не са на църковна служба или заемат църковна служба в нецърковно учреждение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 194. Тъжители и свидетели по църковно-наказателни дела могат да бъдат лица от православно изповедание. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВНО-ИМУЩЕСТВЕНИ СПОРОВЕ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 195. Църковно-имуществени спорове, подсъдни на църковния съд, са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. спорове по управление на църковни имоти;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. спорове между клирици: за материални права при/или по повод изпълнение на служебните им задължения; по права за старшинство, чест и ред в службата или други права при/или по повод службата им;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. тъжби и спорове между клирици и миряни във връзка с даване и получаване на треби в натура или в парична форма;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. спорове за установяване на църковни, материални или нематериални права;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. спорове за граници на енории;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. спорове по откриване, разделяне, отделяне или закриване на енории;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. спорове, които възникват от учредяването, преустройството или закриването на църковни институти и учреждения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. спорове за установяване на условията за извършване на тайнствата Кръщение и Венчание, както и тези във връзка с автентичността на документа, удостоверяващ извършването им. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКОВНО-АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ДЕЛА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 196. Основания за отмяна на църковно-административни актове са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. некомпетентност за издаване на акта или превишаване на власт;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. нарушение на материалните или процесуални правила за издаване на акта;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. противоречие с настоящия Устав или с правила на Православната църква;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. неистинност на факти и обстоятелства, на които се основава актът. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 197. Актове и решения, които по църковните правила са предоставени за решаване от органите на църковната власт не могат да се обжалват пред съд в държавата. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 198. (1) Жалба против църковно-административен акт пред църковен съд е допустима, когато страната има личен или пряк интерес от неговата отмяна и не съществува друг ред за неговата отмяна. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Жалбата се подава в 14-дневен срок от постановяването на акта, чрез органа, издал обжалвания акт.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Органът, издал обжалвания акт, има право да го отмени или да изпрати жалбата на висшестоящия църковен орган.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Висшестоящият църковен орган е длъжен да се произнесе в 14-дневен срок от получаването на жалбата.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) При непроизнасяне в срока по ал. 4 или при неуважаване на жалбата заинтересованата страна може да сезира Светия Синод в намален състав, който се произнася в двумесечен срок. Светият Синод се произнася в същия срок, когато висшестоящ орган по ал. 4 е Светият Синод в намален състав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 199. Влезлите в сила решения на църковните съдилища са задължителни за страните, за съда, който ги е постановил и за всички други църковни органи. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 200. Решенията и актовете на църковния съд се изпълняват от всички църковно-административни органи. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 201. Правилата за църковното съдопроизводство за отделните видове църковни спорове се уреждат в Правилника за разглеждане на църковни спорове, приет от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЧАСТ ТРЕТА</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПООЩРЕНИЯ, ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНА И ИМУЩЕСТВЕНА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ОТГОВОРНОСТ НА СЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ В БЪЛГАРСКАТА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава първа</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПООЩРЕНИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 202. (1) За усърдно и благоговейно изпълнение на задълженията си служители на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия могат да бъдат поощрявани с награди и отличия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наградите и отличията се присъждат от Светия Синод или епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 203. (1) Светият Синод по своя преценка, по предложение на епархийски митрополит или по предложение на игумен на ставропигиален манастир награждава свещенослужители с офикии. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) С офикии по ал. 1 може да награждава и епархийският митрополит, за което уведомява Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 204. (1) Светият Синод по своя преценка, по предложение на епархийски митрополит, по предложение на игумен на ставропигиален манастир или ректор на семинария може да награждава изявени служители на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия с ордени, медали, грамоти, парични и предметни награди.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийският митрополит за ревностно изпълнение на служебни задължения може да награждава свещенослужители и служители в своята епархия с ордени, медали, парични и предметни награди. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Учредените ордени и медали от епархийския митрополит по ал. 2 се одобряват от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 205. Светият Синод и епархийските митрополити могат да награждават с ордени, медали, грамоти, парични и предметни награди миряни за заслуги към Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и съответните митрополии. Тези лица се награждават с ордените и медалите, учредени по чл. 204.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава втора</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНА ОТГОВОРНОСТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ОБЩА РАЗПОРЕДБА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 206. (1) Клириците на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия носят дисциплинарна отговорност при виновно осъществяване на дисциплинарни простъпки.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Дисциплинарната отговорност на свещенослужителите не изключва носенето на друг вид отговорност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНИ ПРОСТЪПКИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 207. Дисциплинарни простъпки са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. нарушения на служебните задължения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. забавяне на изпълнението, небрежност или неспособност за изпълнение на служебните задължения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. неспазване благоприличие в служебните отношения и/или към частни лица;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. непристойно поведение извън изпълнението на служебните задължения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. неоправдано отсъствие по време на служба и при/или по повод изпълнение на служебните задължения. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНИ НАКАЗАНИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 208. (1) Дисциплинарни наказания са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. забележка - обръщане внимание върху допуснатата неизправност с предупреждение да не се повтаря;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. мъмрене - укоряване виновния с изрично приканване да се поправи;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. глоба - в размер до една втора от месечното възнаграждение;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. снемане от длъжност на клирици - до покаяние, изразено в писмена форма, в срок до една година. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) След изтичане на срока по ал. 1 т. 4 епархийският митрополит възбужда църковно- наказателно дело за низвержение пред църковния съд. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІV</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВИЛА ЗА НАЛАГАНЕ НА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНИ НАКАЗАНИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 209. Дисциплинарни наказания се налагат от епархийския митрополит в срок до два месеца от откриването на нарушението, но не по-късно от една година от извършването му. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 210. (1) Дисциплинарното наказание се налага с писмена заповед, в която се посочва нарушителят, нарушението и наложеното наказание. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Дисциплинарното наказание се смята за наложено от момента на връчването на заповедта на нарушителя. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато заповедта не може да бъде връчена, тя се изпраща с препоръчано писмо с обратна разписка на постоянния адрес на нарушителя по местоживеене. Когато лицето не може да бъде намерено на този адрес, заповедта се публикува в „Църковен вестник”, от който момент лицето се смята за уведомено. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 211. (1) Дисциплинарното наказание се смята заличено с изтичането на една година от неговото налагане. Това не се отнася за наказанията по чл. 208, т. 4. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Наложеното дисциплинарно наказание „снемане от длъжност” може да се обжалва пред Светия Синод в намален състав от заинтересованото лице в 14-дневен срок от налагането му. Решението на Светия Синод в намален състав е окончателно. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 212. Когато наказанието е постигнало целта си, епархийският митрополит по своя преценка има право да го отмени предсрочно. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 213. За църковните служители (миряни), работещи по трудово правоотношение в Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и нейните поделения, относно дисциплинарната отговорност се прилагат разпоредбите на Кодекса на труда. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 214. (1) Когато е възбудено наказателно преследване пред църковен съд или съд в държавата по провинения, които са свързани с осъществяваната от лицето дейност, епархийският митрополит може да го отстрани за времето, докато трае преследването. За това време то не получава възнаграждение.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато наказателното преследване бъде прекратено или обвиняемият бъде оправдан с влязла в сила присъда, той се възстановява на длъжността, от която е бил отстранен. За времето на отстраняването има право на обезщетение в размер на брутното му възнаграждение за целия период на отстраняването. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава трета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ИМУЩЕСТВЕНА ОТГОВОРНОСТ НА СЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ В </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 215. Свещенослужителите и църковнослужителите в Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия носят имуществена отговорност за виновно причинените вреди на Църквата.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 216. За вреди, причинени от умишлено престъпление при/или по повод изпълнение на служебните си задължения, свещенослужителите и църковнослужителите носят отговорност съгласно българското законодателство.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 217. (1) За вреди, причинени по небрежност при/или по повод изпълнение на служебните си задължения, свещенослужителите и църковнослужителите отговарят в размера на вредата, но не повече от едномесечното им брутно трудово възнаграждение.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Материалноотговорните лица носят отчетническа отговорност в размер на вредата, но не повече от четирикратния размер на брутното им възнаграждение, а в случаите на липса - в пълен размер. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 218. Свещенослужителите и църковнослужителите носят отговорност за причинените вреди, но не и за пропуснатите ползи. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 219. (1) Пълната имуществена отговорност се осъществява по съдебен ред. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Пълната имуществена отговорност на свещенослужителите се търси от църковния съд на основание ревизионния акт за начет, който се изпраща на съда от епархийския митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Производството се осъществява по Правилника за разглеждане на църковни спорове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 220. Пълната имуществена отговорност на църковнослужителите се осъществява по реда на българското законодателство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 221. (1) Ограничената имуществена отговорност се осъществява със заповед на епархийския митрополит, в която се посочват основанията и размерът на отговорността.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Заповедта се издава и връчва на провиненото лице в двумесечен срок от откриването на нарушението, но не повече от една година от извършването. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Лицето, срещу което е издадена заповедта, има право писмено да възрази в 14-дневен срок от връчването й, като оспори основанието или размера. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) В случая по ал. 3 епархийският митрополит може в едномесечен срок да предяви иск пред държавен съд. Когато не бъде направено такова възражение, възмездяването на вредите става чрез удръжки от възнаграждението на провинилото се лице до размера на несеквестируемия доход по Гражданско-процесуалния кодекс. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЧАСТ ЧЕТВЪРТА</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ОСОБЕНИ ПРАВИЛА ОТНОСНО ПРАВНОТО ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ НА СЛУЖИТЕЛИТЕ В БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 222. (1) Служителите на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия са лицата с духовно звание и църковнослужителите (миряни).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Лицата с духовно звание са: Българският патриарх, епархийските митрополити, епископите, свещениците, дяконите, монасите и монахините.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Църковнослужителите са лица, чиято дейност е свързана с обслужване на присъщите на Църквата дейности - клисари, певци, свещопродавачи и други, както и тези в администрациите на Светия Синод, на митрополиите, архиерейските наместничества, на църквите и манастирите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 223. (1) Правата и задълженията на свещенослужителите и монасите в ставропигиалните и епархийските манастири и монахините в епархийските манастири се определят от каноническите правила и настоящия Устав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Лицата по ал. 1 се осигуряват задължително по реда на Закона за здравното осигуряване. Осигуряването се извършва от бюджета на Светия Синод, за което манастирите превеждат необходимите средства по него. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Споровете относно правата и задълженията на лицата по ал. 1 се разглеждат от църковните съдилища. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 224. (1) Правното положение на лицата по чл. 222, ал. 2 се определя от каноните на светата Православна църква и настоящия Устав, които са водещи за тях. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Особеният режим, който се прилага спрямо свещенослужителите, включва: придобиването на духовното звание; начина на определяне на възнаграждението за него; определяне на правата и задълженията им и взаимоотношенията с църковното ръководство; носенето на отговорност при виновно неизпълнение на възложените задължения; освобождаване от духовно звание и реда за разглеждане на спорове от църковните съдилища. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 225. (1) Свещенослужителите, които получават възнаграждение, подлежат на осигуряване за всички осигурени социални рискове по държавното обществено осигуряване, както и на здравно осигуряване, съгласно разпоредбите на закона.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Осигурител за случаите по ал. 1 е съответното юридическо лице, заплащащо възнаграждението на свещенослужителите. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 226. Свещенослужител, който уронва авторитета на Църквата, както и когато предприема действия като длъжностно лице пред държавен съд без одобрение от епархийския митрополит, съответно от Светия Синод, подлежи на църковно наказване. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 227. (1) Църковните служители са светски лица (миряни), които се назначават от съответните църковни органи и се ползват с правата и задълженията на служителите по Кодекса на труда и други разпоредби на трудовото и осигурителното законодателство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Разпоредбите по ал. 1 не се прилагат за лицата, които извършват дейности в отделни дни на богослужение или естеството на дейността не предполага наличие на трудово правоотношение поради еднократния характер на осъществяваната дейност. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Възнаграждението на лицата по ал. 2 се определя по гражданскоправен ред от специално обособени средства, предоставени на църковните настоятелства за издръжка на храмовете или от събрани дарения, след писмено разрешение на епархийския митрополит, дадено на председателя на църковното настоятелство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЧАСТ ПЕТА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ИЗДРЪЖКА НА ЦЪРКВАТА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава първа </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРИХОДИ И РАЗХОДИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРИХОДИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 228. Средствата на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите и техните поделения се определят по годишни бюджети за приходите по ред, утвърден от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 229. Средствата на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите и техните поделения се набират от: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. волни пожертвования, завещания и наследства от физически лица;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. дарения от юридически лица, обществени учреждения, организации и фондове;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. печатане и издаване на църковна литература, производство и продажба на църковни свещи и други вещи, свързани с богослужебната и религиозна дейност и потребност;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. дивиденти от дейността на търговски дружества, собственост на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите, църквите и манастирите; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. дивиденти от дейността на търговски дружества, в които Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия и митрополиите, църквите и манастирите имат дялово или акционерно участие; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. приходи от учредени вещни права на строеж и вещни права на ползване, наеми и арендни вноски от отдадени за ползване на трети лица недвижими имоти, принадлежащи на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите и техните поделения;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. приходи от лихви по банкови сметки и приходи от притежаване или от продажба на ценни книжа; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. църковни такси и глоби; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. доходи от църковни стопанства;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. държавни субсидии за Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, които са предвидени по Закона за държавния бюджет; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 11. други източници, съответстващи на изискванията на настоящия Устав и българското законодателство. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">РАЗХОДИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 230. Средствата по бюджета на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия - Светия Синод, ставропигиалните манастири, митрополиите и техните поделения се разходват за:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1.възнаграждения на архиереите, свещенослужителите и църковнослужителите в администрациите по щатове, утвърдени от съответните органи;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. издръжка на Църковния събор;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. издръжка на средните и висшите богословски училища и пансионите при тях;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. подпомагане издръжката на Патриаршеския катедрален ставропигиален храм-паметник "Св. Александър Невски";</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. издръжка на Националния църковен историко-археологически музей, Църковноисторическия и архивен институт при Българската Патриаршия, църковни музеи и библиотеки; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. изграждане, поддържане или наемане помещения за Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите и архиерейските наместничества; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 7. инвестиране в търговски дружества с цел увеличаване на църковното имущество; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 8. инвестиране в ценни книжа;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 9. създаване на доброволни фондове в помощ на пенсионирани свещеници;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 10. други обосновани необходими разходи. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава втора</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">БЮДЖЕТ, КОНТРОЛ И ОТЧЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел І </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">БЮДЖЕТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 231. (1) Приходите и разходите на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия - Светия Синод, ставропигиалните манастири, митрополиите и техните поделения се предвиждат и разрешават в бюджети за една финансова година.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Светият Синод осигурява възнагражденията по чл. 135, т. 21 с бюджет, формиран от приходи в равен процент от отчисления от всички митрополии, отчисления от ставропигиалните манастири и други приходи.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Финансовата година съвпада с календарната година.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Църковното имущество, приходите и разходите се ползват по предназначение. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 232. (1) Светият Синод утвърждава консолидирания бюджет на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Консолидираният бюджет се състои от бюджетите на:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1. Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. митрополиите;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. ставропигиалните манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. средните и висшите духовни училища;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. учреждения, пряко подчинени на Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Епархийският митрополит утвърждава консолидирания бюджет на митрополията, който включва бюджетите на църквите и епархийските манастири.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Бюджетите по ал. 1-3 се изготвят от съответните финансово-счетоводни отдели. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 233. Разпоредители с бюджетните средства са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 1. Българският патриарх или определено от него лице с писмена заповед - за бюджета на Светия Синод; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 2. епархийският митрополит - за бюджета на митрополията;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 3. игумените - за ставропигиалните и епархийските манастири;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 4. ректорите - за средните и висшите духовни училища;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 5. председателите на църковните настоятелства - за Патриаршеския катедрален ставропигиален храм-паметник „Св. Александър Невски” и църквите;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> 6. директорите и управителите - за учреждения, фондации, дружества и други. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРАВИЛА ЗА ОСИГУРЯВАНЕ НА ПРИХОДНАТА ЧАСТ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">НА БЮДЖЕТА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 234. Църковните органи събират общоцърковни, съдебно-църковни, канцеларски и други такси. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 235. Общоцърковни такси се събират срещу установени свидетелства, които носят знаците на Българската Патриаршия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 236 Съдебни такси се събират по делата пред църковните съдилища и за всички книжа, издавани от съдебните власти. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 237. Канцеларски такси се определят и събират от църковните органи за заверка, издаване на свидетелства, удостоверения, издаване и заверка на преписи от протоколи или решения и други документи. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 238. (1) Требни такси са тези, които се събират за извършване от свещенослужителите на треби и чинодействия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато християнин покани за извършване на треба освен енорийския и друг свещеник, както и дякон и певец, частта от требната такса, определена за свещеника, се плаща на всеки свещенослужител и църковнослужител отделно. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 239. (1) Размерът на таксите, събирани в приход на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се определя от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийските митрополити по изключение могат да определят размери, по-ниски от установените от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 240. (1) Синодалният производствен комплекс произвежда църковни вещи, утвари, съсъди и други принадлежности, необходими за църквите, манастирите, свещенослужителите и православните християни. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Синодалният производствен комплекс произвежда и доставя църковни свещи единствено на църквите, манастирите, параклисите и оброчищата, освен ако Светият Синод не реши друго. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 241. (1) Свещите, които се продават в църквите и манастирите на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, се осигуряват и контролират при условия, ред и органи, определени от Светия Синод;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийските митрополити, архиерейските наместници, председателите на църковните настоятелства и игумените/игуменките на манастирите са длъжни да осигуряват за църквите и манастирите свещи при спазване на изискванията по ал. 1. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Епархийски митрополити, архиерейски наместници, председатели на църковните настоятелства и игумени, които не изпълняват това задължение, се наказват с лишаване от сан по църковно-съдебен ред, а игуменките се разстригват. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 242. (1) Приходите от свещи, които се отчисляват от църквите и манастирите за съответните митрополии, както и от митрополиите за Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, се определят по Методика за начина на отчисления, приета от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Когато не бъдат направени определените отчисления, Светият Синод не осигурява възнагражденията, здравните и осигурителни вноски за свещенослужителите към съответната митрополия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 243. (1) Църквите и манастирите правят отчисления всеки месец по бюджета на съответната митрополия от наемни, арендни и други договори, както и от дивиденти от търговски дружества в размери, определени от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Митрополиите, ставропигиалните манастири и синодалните поделения правят отчисления всеки месец по бюджета на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия в размери, определени от Светия Синод. В консолидирания бюджет на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия се включват и отчисления от приходи от недвижими имоти и други имущества, нейна собственост, определени от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Когато не бъдат направени определените отчисления по ал. 1 и ал. 2 към бюджета на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, Светият Синод не осигурява възнагражденията, здравните и осигурителните вноски за свещенослужителите към съответната митрополия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 244. (1) Договорите за наем, аренда и за учредяването на право на строеж и право на ползване се сключват по ред, определен с наредба, приета от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийските митрополити представят доклад за сключените наемни, арендни договори, учредените вещни права на строеж и вещни права на ползване, както и други договори, сключени от митрополиите и техните местни поделения - църкви и манастири, преди утвърждаване на годишните бюджети от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Игумените на ставропигиалните манастири и ръководителите на други поделения на Светия Синод представят доклада по ал. 2 преди утвърждаването на годишните бюджети от Светия Синод.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) При неизпълнение на задължението по ал. 2 и ал. 3 Светият Синод не утвърждава бюджета на съответната митрополия, ставропигиален манастир или поделение на Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Раздел ІІІ</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">КОНТРОЛ И ОТЧЕТИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 245. (1) Длъжностните лица в Църквата, на които е възложено да получават и да разходват парични средства, както и да закупуват, съхраняват и продават материални предмети, са отчетници. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Лицата по ал.1 носят материална отговорност за поверените им материални и/или парични средства и осъществяват дейността си в съответствие с този Устав и действащите нормативни актове. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 246. (1) Отчетите по изпълнението на бюджетите, утвърждавани от Светия Синод, се проверяват и приемат от Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Отчетите по изпълнението на бюджетите се представят в Светия Синод най-късно до 31 март на следващата година. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 247. (1) Светият Синод най-късно до 30 юни на текущата година проверява и приема отчетите по изпълнението на бюджетите и при необходимост разпорежда извършването на ревизии по изпълнението на задълженията за отчисляване на средствата по този Устав. При установени нарушения той изисква съставянето на ревизионни актове за начет за реализиране на имуществена отговорност от отговорните лица. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) За осъществяването на контрола по разходване средствата на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, Светият Синод възлага общи и специализирани ревизии, когато има съмнения относно законосъобразното разходване на средствата, като предлага налагането на наказание на виновните лица. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Ревизионният акт се връчва на начетеното лице, което в седемдневен срок може да възрази пред Светия Синод. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 248. (1) Епархийският митрополит упражнява финансов контрол чрез финансови ревизори. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Отчетите по бюджетите, утвърждавани от епархийския митрополит, се проверяват от епархийски финансов ревизор и по негов доклад се внасят за разглеждане от Епархийския съвет.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Епархийският митрополит проверява и приема представения отчет и може да разпореди извършването на ревизия и носенето на имуществена отговорност от виновните лица. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава трета</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЕДИНЕН СИНОДАЛЕН РЕГИСТЪР НА ИМОТИТЕ, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">СОБСТВЕНОСТ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАВОСЛАВНА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКВА - БЪЛГАРСКА ПАТРИАРШИЯ, МИТРОПОЛИИТЕ, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЦЪРКВИТЕ И МАНАСТИРИТЕ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 249. (1) Единен синодален регистър на недвижимите имоти - църковна собственост, се води при Светия Синод на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Църковна собственост са имотите, собственост на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия, митрополиите, църквите и манастирите, включително и тези, които се намират извън територията на Република България.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Епархийски регистър на недвижимите имоти - собственост на митрополията, църквите и манастирите, се води при всяка митрополия.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 250. (1) Регистърът се води по имотни партиди, като за всеки недвижим имот: поземлен имот, сграда и самостоятелен обект в сграда, се открива самостоятелна партида. Всяка партида има уникален партиден номер. При разделяне на недвижим имот се откриват партиди за новообразуваните имоти.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Партидата на всеки недвижим имот се състои от следните три части:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Част „А” - относно имота: идентификатор, адрес, вид, площ, граници и предназначение.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Част „Б” - относно придобивното основание, титула за собственост, учредените ограничени вещни права, сключени договори за наем, аренда и съвместна дейност.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Част „В” - за ипотеки, възбрани и съдебни спорове относно имота. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 251. (1) Вписването в Единния синодален регистър се извършва от длъжностно лице, назначено от Светия Синод, а в епархийските регистри - от длъжностно лице, определено с писмена заповед от съответния епархийски митрополит.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Вписването се извършва чрез подреждане на подлежащите на вписване правни актове и обстоятелствата по чл. 250 в специални книги и на електронен носител. При несъответствие между двата записа, действие има този, който е на хартиен носител. Регистърът на хартиен носител се подпечатва с печата на Българска Патриаршия - Свети Синод, а на съответната митрополия - с печата на митрополията.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Всяко обстоятелство, подлежащо на вписване по чл. 250, се отразява в епархийския имотен регистър в срок до 15 (петнадесет) дни, а в Единния синодален имотен регистър - в срок до 30 (тридесет) дни от датата на настъпването му.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (4) Вписаните правни актове и обстоятелства по съответните партиди образуват том. Всеки том започва с нова номерация на листовете. В края на всяка година образуваните томове се подвързват, прошнуроват, подпечатват с печата на регистъра и се подписват от длъжностното лице, водещо вписването.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (5) Епархийските митрополити, ставропигиалните манастири и ръководителите на други поделения на Светия Синод са задължени да оказват съдействие на Единния синодален имотен регистър и да предоставят своевременно пълна и точна информация за имотите - църковна собственост, находящи се на тяхната територия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 252. (1) Справки и преписи от Единния синодален регистър се извършват с разрешение на главния секретар на Светия Синод, а от епархийските регистри се извършват с разрешение на епархийския митрополит. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Лицата по ал. 1 писмено разрешават извършването на справки и преписи при необходимост от представянето им пред съдебни и административни органи.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Светият Синод приема правила за условията и реда за извършване на вписванията и за поддържането и съхраняването на регистрите на имотите - църковна собственост. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Глава шеста</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЗНАМЕ И ПЕЧАТИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 253. Знамето на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия е: зелено, на което със златист цвят е изобразен храм с три купола, увенчан с архиерейска корона, от двете страни с дикири и трикири и с надпис: „Българска православна църква - Българска Патриаршия” и трите години на въздигане в ранг Патриаршия на Българската православна църква - 927, 1235 и 1953 г. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 254. (1) Българската Патриаршия и Светият Синод имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Българска Патриаршия * Св. Синод *”, а в средата - изображение на храм с три кубета, ограден с клончета и годината - 1953.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Личният печат на Българския патриарх е кръгъл с надпис наоколо: “Български патриарх (име и година на интронизацията)”, а в средата - митра, дикири и трикири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 255. (1) Епархийските съвети имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “... епархийски съвет”, а в средата - кръст с венец.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Личните печати на епархийските митрополити - кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: „ ... митрополит ... ”, отдолу - година на интронизирането, а в средата - митра, дикири и трикири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 256. (1) Църковните свещоливници имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Църковна свещоливница”, отдолу - местонахождение, а в средата - кръст.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Епархийските контролни органи имат кръгъл печат с надпис: “... епархийски финансов ревизор”, а в средата - кръст, а Архиерейската контролно-финансова комисия - печат с надпис: “Архиерейска контролно-финансова комисия - Свети Синод”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 257. Архиерейските наместничества имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: отгоре - “Архиерейско наместничество”, отдолу - местонахождение, а в средата - кръст. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 258. (1) Църковните настоятелства имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Църковно настоятелство при храм “Св. ...” в ...”, а в средата - кръст.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Енорийските свещеници имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Енорийски свещеник при храм “Св. ...”, в гр. (с.) ...” а в средата - кръст. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 259. Патриаршеският катедрален ставропигиален храм-паметник “Св. Александър Невски” има кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “+Патриаршеска катедрала +Ставропигиален храм-паметник “Св. Александър Невски” София”, а в средата - изображение на светията, на храма и три години: 1882, 1912 и 1924. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 260. Печатите на ставропигиалните манастири са:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> на Рилския манастир - кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Рилска св. обител”, а в средата - образа на св. Иван Рилски с надпис: “Св. Иван Рилски Чудотворец”;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> на Бачковския манастир - кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: отгоре - “Обител св. Богородица”, отдолу - Бачково, а в средата - образа на св. Богородица с Младенеца;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> на Троянския манастир - кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Троянска св. обител”, а в средата - “Успение Богородично”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 261. Епархийските манастири имат кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “... манастир “Св. ...”, а в средата - изображение на светията. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 262. Софийската духовна семинария има кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: “Софийска духовна семинария “Св. Иван Рилски”, а в средата - кръст. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> Чл. 263. Пловдивската духовна семинария има кръгъл печат с надпис наоколо: „Пловдивска духовна семинария”, а в средата - кръст. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ДОПЪЛНИТЕЛНА РАЗПОРЕДБА </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 1. По смисъла на този Устав: „Светият Синод” е Светият Синод в пълен състав. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПРЕХОДНИ И ЗАКЛЮЧИТЕЛНИ РАЗПОРЕДБИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 2. Съществуващите юридически лица на Българската православна църква към момента на влизането в сила на Закона за вероизповеданията (обн. ДВ, бр. 120 от 29.12.2002 г. ) по отменения Закон за изповеданията по чл. 6 (отм. с § 8 от Закона за вероизповеданията) и с отменения Устав на Българската православна църква (отм. с § 11) запазват статута си на юридически лица. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 3. (1) Имуществото на юридически лица - църкви и манастири, които се присъединяват към други юридически лица - църкви и манастири, преминава в тяхна собственост. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Имуществото на митрополията като юридическо лице, която се присъединява към друга митрополия, преминава в нейна собственост, а при разделяне - имуществото на съществуваща митрополия се разпределя между новосъздадените митрополии с решение на Църковния събор. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 4. (1) Литургическите принадлежности на починал Български патриарх остават на Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Литургическите принадлежности на починал епархийски митрополит остават на митрополията, а на бивш митрополит - остават на митрополията, в която е служил.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (3) Литургическите принадлежности на починал архиерей без епархия и на монашестващи духовни лица, които не са в манастир, остават на манастира, в който са постригани, освен ако по завещание не са оставени на друго поделение или учреждение на Църквата. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 5. За сключените до влизането в сила на настоящия Устав сделки се прилагат правилата на Устава на Българската православна църква от 1951 г. (отм. с § 11). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 6. Светият Синод в срок до 1 година от влизането в сила на настоящия Устав утвърждава изработените устави за вътрешния ред на ставропигиалните манастири, а епархийският митрополит - на епархийските манастири. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 7. Светият Синод в срок до 1 година от влизането в сила на настоящия Устав приема Правилник за съдопроизводството на Църковния съд по чл. 188 ал. 2. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 8. Светият Синод в срок до 6 месеца от влизането в сила на настоящия Устав приема Наредба за контрола, условията и реда за продажба на свещи в Българската православна църква - Българска Патриаршия по чл. 241 ал. 1, както и изработва Методика за начина на отчисления по чл. 242 ал. 1. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 9. Светият Синод в срок до 6 месеца от влизането в сила на настоящия Устав приема Наредба за реда за сключване на договорите за наем, аренда, учредяване на право на строеж и право на ползване. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 10. Светият Синод в срок до 6 месеца от влизането в сила на настоящия Устав приема правила за условията и реда за извършване на вписванията и за реда за поддържането и съхраняването на регистрите на имотите - църковна собственост. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> § 11. (1) Този Устав отменя действащия Устав на Българската православна църква, утвърден съгласно разпоредбите на Закона за изповеданията, отменен със Закона за вероизповеданията (обн. ДВ, бр. 120 от 29.12.2002 г. в сила от 02.01.2003 г.). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (2) Уставът влиза в сила от публикуването му в „Църковен вестник”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ НА БЮРОТО НА VІ ЦЪРКОВНО-НАРОДЕН СЪБОР: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ПАТРИАРХ БЪЛГАРСКИ И МИТРОПОЛИТ СОФИЙСКИ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ЧЛЕНОВЕ НА БЮРОТО НА VI ЦЪРКОВНО-НАРОДЕН СЪБОР: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> СТОБИЙСКИ ЕПИСКОП НАУМ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> ПРОТОЙЕРЕЙ АНГЕЛ ЕМАНУИЛОВ АНГЕЛОВ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> ИВАН КОНСТАНТИНОВ МИНЕВ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> МАРИЯ ПЕТКОВА КЬОСЕВА</span>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-74696492879860715492011-02-01T09:23:00.002+01:002011-02-01T09:30:53.391+01:00AFFAIRE BOYCHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE (Merits and Just Satisfaction) 'echr 9 bg-8'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="color: black;"></div><div class="Normal" style="color: black; margin-top: 24pt; text-align: justify;"><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span class="normal----char--Char" style="font-size: large;"><span class="normal----char--Char"><span style="font-size: small;">CINQUIÈME SECTION </span><br />
<br />
<b>AFFAIRE BOYCHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE</b><br />
<br />
(<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: #990000;">Requête no 77185/01</span></b></span>) <br />
<br />
ARRÊT<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">STRASBOURG<br />
<span style="color: red;">27 janvier 2011</span></span></span></span></div><span class="normal----char--Char"><span class="normal----char--Char" style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;"> </span></span><br />
<span class="normal----char--Char"><span class="normal----char--Char" style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;">Cet arrêt deviendra définitif dans les conditions définies à l'article 44 § 2 de la Convention. Il peut subir des retouches de forme</span></span><span class="Normal--Char" style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;">.</span></div><div style="color: black;"></div><div class="Ju-005fCase" style="color: black;">En l'affaire <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="HIT2"></a><b>Boychev</b> et autres c. Bulgarie,</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (cinquième section), siégeant en une chambre composée de :</div><div class="Ju-005fJudges" style="color: black; text-indent: 36pt;">Peer Lorenzen,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> président,</span><span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span> Renate Jaeger,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span> Rait Maruste,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span> Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span> Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span> Zdravka Kalaydjieva,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span> Ganna Yudkivska,<span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> juges,</span><span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span>et de Claudia Westerdiek, <span class="Ju-005fJudges--Char" style="font-style: italic;">greffière de section</span>,</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">Après en avoir délibéré en chambre du conseil le 14 décembre 2010,</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">Rend l'arrêt que voici, adopté à cette date :</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fHead" style="color: black;">PROCÉDURE</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">1. A l'origine de l'affaire se trouve une requête (n<sup>o</sup> 77185/01) dirigée contre la République de Bulgarie et dont trois ressortissants de cet Etat, M. Biser Georgiev <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="HIT3"></a><b>Boychev</b>, M. Mihail Dimitrov Sergeev et M<sup>me </sup>Rumyana Georgieva Sharova (« les requérants ») et une association, l'Église de l'unification (« l'association requérante ») ont saisi la Cour le 6 novembre 2000 en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales (« la Convention »).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">2. Les requérants sont représentés par M<sup>es</sup> V. Meneva et Y. Grozev, avocats à Sofia. Le gouvernement bulgare (« le Gouvernement ») est représenté par son agent, M<sup>me </sup> M. Kotseva, du ministère de la Justice.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">3. Les requérants se plaignent de l'intervention de la police au cours d'un rassemblement religieux ainsi que du refus d'enregistrement de l'association requérante en tant que confession.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">4. Le 28 novembre 2006, le président de la cinquième section a décidé de communiquer la requête au Gouvernement. Comme le permet l'article 29 § 3 de la Convention, il a en outre été décidé <span class="Strong--Char"><span class="Strong--Char" style="font-weight: normal;">que la chambre </span></span> se prononcerait en même temps sur la recevabilité et le fond.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fHead" style="color: black;">EN FAIT</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman" style="color: black;">I. LES CIRCONSTANCES DE L'ESPÈCE</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">5. Les trois premiers requérants sont des ressortissants bulgares. M. Biser <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="HIT4"></a><b>Boychev</b> est né en 1966 et réside à Parvenets, M. Mihail Sergeev est né en 1957 et réside à Sofia, M<sup>me</sup> Rumyana Sharova est née en 1974 et réside à Berlin. L'association requérante, l'Église de l'unification, est un groupement religieux actif en Bulgarie depuis 1992.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">A. Les évènements du 6 avril 1997 et les démarches entreprises par les requérants</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">6. A partir de 1992, les trois requérants devinrent adeptes de la branche bulgare de l'Église de l'unification (<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Обединителна църква</span>), également connue sous le nom d'Association de l'Esprit Saint pour l'unification du christianisme mondial, fondée par Sun Myung Moon en 1954. Les réunions auxquelles ils participèrent auraient été à plusieurs reprises interrompues par la police.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">7. Le 6 avril 1997, les requérants assistèrent à un rassemblement d'une dizaine de personnes au domicile de la troisième requérante, M<sup>me</sup> Sharova, à Blagoevgrad. La réunion fut interrompue par des policiers munis d'une autorisation préalable d'un procureur de district d'effectuer une perquisition. Les policiers procédèrent à un contrôle d'identité des personnes présentes et à la perquisition de l'appartement. Ils saisirent des livres, des cassettes VHS, des formulaires d'adhésion, ainsi qu'un téléviseur et un magnétoscope appartenant à la troisième requérante. Le procès-verbal notifié à cette dernière faisait référence aux dispositions du code de procédure pénale (CPP) relatives à l'enquête de délit flagrant.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">8. Il ressort des courriers échangés par la suite entre la direction régionale des affaires intérieures (DRAI) de Blagoevgrad, le parquet de district et le parquet régional que l'intervention des policiers et la perquisition effectuée visaient l'interruption de la réunion, considérée comme illégale dans la mesure où l'organisation religieuse n'était pas enregistrée et reconnue en Bulgarie. Certains de ces documents faisaient référence à l'article 185 du CPP et à la compétence générale du parquet pour la prévention des actes illégaux et des infractions pénales.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">9. Les 17 et 22 avril 1997, la troisième requérante s'adressa respectivement au procureur de district et à la DRAI pour demander la restitution des objets saisis. Le téléviseur et le magnétoscope lui furent restitués le 22 avril 1997. Les autres objets saisis ne furent pas restitués, apparemment en raison d'un refus du procureur.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">10. Le 28 juillet 1997, les trois requérants engagèrent une action en responsabilité contre la DRAI, le parquet général et le parquet de district de Blagoevgrad. Ils soutenaient que la perquisition et la saisie effectuées étaient irrégulières dans la mesure où rien n'indiquait que le rassemblement des membres de leur église était illégal. Les requérants réclamaient une indemnisation au titre du préjudice moral subi ainsi que la restitution des objets saisis.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">11. Par une ordonnance du 16 novembre 1998, le tribunal de district de Blagoevgrad déclara l'action irrecevable au motif que les requérants n'avaient pas invoqué la loi sur la responsabilité de l'Etat mais la responsabilité délictuelle de droit commun et que les agissements des policiers étaient par ailleurs en conformité avec la loi.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">12. Sur recours des requérants, le 14 juillet 1999, le tribunal régional de Blagoevgrad annula la décision d'irrecevabilité au motif qu'il appartenait au tribunal de procéder à la qualification juridique des faits dont il avait été saisi. L'affaire fut renvoyée au tribunal de district pour un examen sur le fond.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">13. Par un jugement du 19 mai 2000, le tribunal rejeta la demande des requérants au motif que les policiers avaient agi conformément à la loi et dans le cadre de l'autorisation donnée par le parquet et que les intéressés n'avaient en outre pas démontré avoir subi un préjudice. Il fit droit à la demande de restitution des objets saisis.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">14. Les requérants, la DRAI et le parquet de district interjetèrent appel. Les requérants réitérèrent que l'inscription en tant que confession n'était pas une condition à l'exercice de la liberté de religion et qu'ils n'avaient dès lors commis aucun acte illégal qui aurait pu justifier l'intervention de la police.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">15. Par un jugement du 18 avril 2001, le tribunal régional de Blagoevgrad rejeta l'appel des requérants. Il constata que la perquisition avait été ordonnée à la suite de l'information reçue par la police qu'un rassemblement des membres de la « secte Moon » allait avoir lieu dans l'appartement de la troisième requérante. La police avait dûment demandé et obtenu l'autorisation du procureur pour procéder à une perquisition. Les policiers qui s'étaient rendus sur place avaient contrôlé l'identité des personnes présentes, procédé à une perquisition et saisi plusieurs livres, des cassettes VHS, des formulaires d'adhésion à l'association, un magnétoscope et un téléviseur. Ils avaient agi conformément à la loi et n'avaient pas eu pour but de causer un préjudice aux intéressés, qui n'avaient au demeurant pas démontré un tel dommage. Bien au contraire, c'étaient les requérants qui avaient enfreint la loi en participant à un rassemblement religieux en l'absence d'enregistrement préalable de leur mouvement en vertu de la loi sur les confessions.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">16. Le tribunal infirma le premier jugement dans la partie ordonnant la restitution des objets saisis. Il observa qu'il s'agissait d'éléments de preuve et que leur sort devait être décidé par les autorités de poursuite ou, le cas échéant, par les juridictions pénales. Ce jugement n'était pas susceptible de recours.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">B. Tentatives des requérants d'inscrire l'Église de l'unification en tant que confession</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">17. A une assemblée générale tenue le 8 novembre 1998, 34 membres fondateurs décidèrent la création de l'association requérante, adoptèrent des statuts et élurent ses dirigeants. En vertu des articles 2 et 3 des statuts, le but de l'organisation était la confession de la foi chrétienne, basée sur le principe d'harmonie universelle et de paix entre tous les humains. Ses activités devaient consister, entre autre, en l'organisation de services religieux, l'étude de la Bible, l'édition d'ouvrages religieux et des actions de charité.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">18. Le 9 décembre 1998, le premier requérant, M. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="HIT5"></a><b>Boychev</b>, en sa qualité de président du conseil d'administration, déposa auprès du Conseil des ministres une demande d'enregistrement de l'association en tant que confession en vertu de l'article 6 de la loi sur les confessions. Il y joignit les statuts de l'association ainsi que les procès-verbaux de l'assemblée générale constitutive et de la première réunion du conseil d'administration.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">19. N'ayant pas reçu de réponse dans le délai légal d'un mois, le 22 janvier 1999 le premier requérant saisit la Cour administrative suprême d'un recours contre ce qu'il estimait être une décision implicite de rejet de la part de l'administration.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">20. Peu de temps après le premier requérant reçut une lettre du Conseil des ministres, datée du 6 janvier 1999, lui indiquant qu'une grande partie des textes des documents présentés à l'appui de la demande d'enregistrement étaient imprécis et incomplets, ce qui ne permettait pas de vérifier leur conformité aux exigences de l'article 37 alinéa 2 de la Constitution, ni de distinguer l'association des autres mouvements religieux. En application de l'article 30 de la loi sur les confessions, le requérant était invité à modifier les statuts conformément aux observations formulées et à préciser la spécificité de la communauté religieuse en cause.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">21. Par une ordonnance du 1<sup>er</sup> mars 2000, la Cour administrative suprême déclara le recours introduit par le premier requérant irrecevable au motif qu'il n'y avait pas de refus, exprès ou implicite, susceptible de recours. La cour observa que l'autorité administrative n'avait pas rejeté la demande, n'ayant pas pu juger de la conformité de l'association à la Constitution à partir des éléments disponibles. Elle avait donc indiqué au requérant qu'il devait préciser les statuts de l'organisation. A cela s'ajoutait le fait que la loi sur les confessions astreignait l'autorité administrative à examiner toute demande d'inscription et à rendre une décision écrite. Dans ces circonstances, on ne pouvait considérer être en présence d'une décision implicite de rejet.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">22. Sur recours du premier requérant, le 8 mai 2000, une formation élargie de la Cour administrative suprême confirma l'ordonnance attaquée pour des motifs similaires.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">23. Les requérants ne donnèrent pas suite à la lettre du Conseil des ministres du 6 janvier 1999.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">24. En janvier 2002, le premier requérant demanda l'enregistrement d'une association, la Fédération familiale pour la paix mondiale et l'unification, en vertu de la nouvelle loi sur les personnes morales à but non lucratif. Selon les statuts, l'association avait pour but l'accomplissement de la paix et de l'unité dans le monde, fondées sur l'éducation d'individus murs et harmonieux au sein de familles saines et stables. Par un jugement du 23 janvier 2002, le tribunal de la ville de Sofia ordonna l'inscription au registre de l'association, dont le premier requérant était le président et dont le deuxième requérant, M. Sergeev, était membre du conseil d'administration.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman" style="color: black;">II. LE DROIT ET LA PRATIQUE INTERNES PERTINENTS</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">A. La Liberté de religion dans les textes fondamentaux</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">25. L'article 13 de la Constitution de 1991 proclame la liberté des cultes et la séparation des institutions religieuses de l'Etat. Des dispositions similaires étaient également contenues dans la loi sur les confessions de 1949.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">26. L'article 37 de la Constitution proclame la liberté de la conscience et de la pensée ainsi que le libre choix d'une confession et de convictions religieuses ou athéistes. L'article 37 alinéa 2 dispose que la liberté de conscience et de religion ne saurait être dirigée contre la sécurité nationale, la santé ou la morale publiques ou contre les droits et libertés des autres citoyens.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">B. La personnalité juridique des associations cultuelles</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">27. A l'époque des faits de l'espèce, une association cultuelle acquérait la personnalité juridique si elle obtenait le statut de confession en application de la loi sur les confessions de 1949 (<span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char"><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;">за</span></span><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">кон</span><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char"><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> за изповеданията</span>)</span>. En vertu de l'article 6 de cette loi :</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">« Une confession est réputée reconnue et acquiert la personnalité juridique après l'approbation de ses statuts par le Conseil des ministres ou par un vice-premier ministre habilité à cet effet. »</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">Le droit bulgare ne contient aucune disposition procédurale spécifiquement applicable à l'examen par le Conseil des ministres d'une demande d'agrément. En vertu des dispositions générales de la loi sur la procédure administrative, en vigueur à l'époque, un organe administratif saisi d'une demande devait se prononcer dans un délai de sept jours ou, lorsqu'il est nécessaire de rassembler des éléments complémentaires, dans un délai d'un mois. En l'absence de réponse dans ce délai, les personnes concernées pouvaient introduire un recours contre la décision implicite de rejet dans un délai de deux semaines.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">28. Une association pouvait également acquérir la personnalité juridique en effectuant un enregistrement en tant que personne morale à but non lucratif en application de la loi de 1949 sur les personnes et la famille<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;"> (</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000002"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000003"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000004"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000005"></a><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char"><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;">з</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000006"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000007"></a><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">акон за лицата и семейството</span>). L'article 133a de cette loi, introduit le 18 février 1994, disposait toutefois que l'enregistrement des organisations ayant une activité de culte ou d'enseignement religieux n'était effectué qu'après l'agrément préalable du Conseil des ministres.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">29. La nouvelle loi sur les personnes morales à but non lucratif <span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char">(<span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;">за</span></span><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">кон</span><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char"><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> за юридическите</span></span><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> лица с нестопанска цел</span>), entrée en vigueur le 1<sup>er</sup> janvier 2001, ne prévoit pas de condition similaire pour l'enregistrement de telles associations.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">30. Par ailleurs, une nouvelle loi sur les confessions religieuses (<span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char"><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;">за</span></span><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">кон</span><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char"><span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> за вероизповеданията</span>) </span>est entrée en vigueur le 1<sup>er</sup> janvier 2003 et a modifié la procédure d'enregistrement des confessions, qui est désormais effectué devant le tribunal de la ville de Sofia.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">C. Les activités religieuses des associations non enregistrées</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">31. Aucune disposition du droit interne ne subordonne expressément l'exercice de la liberté de religion et l'organisation de rassemblements religieux à l'enregistrement préalable d'une association cultuelle en tant que personne morale.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">32. Toutefois, à l'époque des faits de l'espèce, de tels rassemblements étaient souvent interrompus par la police au motif que l'association concernée n'était pas enregistrée (voir les faits dans les affaires suivantes examinées par les organes de la Convention – <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Lotter et Lotter c. Bulgarie </span>(règlement amiable), n<sup>o</sup> 39015/97, 19 mai 2004 et <span class="ju--005fpara----char--Char"><span class="ju--005fpara----char--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Khristiansko sdruzhenie Svideteli na Jehova </span></span><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">c. Bulgarie</span>, n<sup>o </sup> 28626/95, décision de la Commission du 3 juillet 1997).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">33. La jurisprudence interne en la matière est peu abondante et parfois contradictoire. Dans des circonstances similaires à celles de l'espèce, le tribunal de district de Sofia a considéré qu'en cas de refus d'enregistrement, les activités cultuelles d'une association étaient illégales ; il avait toutefois considéré la perquisition effectuée irrégulière en l'absence de procédure pénale en cours<b style="color: #660000;"> (Реш. от 28.03.1998г., д. № 11650/95)</b>. Le même tribunal a considéré dans une autre affaire qu'une perquisition était légale dès lors qu'elle avait été ordonnée par le parquet, mais que l'organisation de réunions des membres d'une association religieuse n'était pas subordonnée à l'enregistrement de cette dernière, les autorités se réservant toutefois le droit d'intervenir en cas de risque pour la santé publique ou la morale <b style="color: #660000;">(Реш. от 02.02.1999г., д. № 11281/95)</b>.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">34. Par un arrêt du 14 mai 2001 <b style="color: #660000;">(Реш. № 3270 от 14.05.2001 г. по адм. д. № 2174/2000 г., III отд.)</b>, la Cour administrative suprême a confirmé que le droit interne n'imposait aux associations religieuses aucune obligation d'enregistrement et que leurs membres étaient dès lors libres de se rassembler même en l'absence d'un tel enregistrement.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">D. Dispositions relatives aux perquisitions et saisies</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">35. En vertu des articles 134 et 135 du code de procédure pénale de 1974 (CPP), tels qu'en vigueur à l'époque des faits, une perquisition et une saisie pouvaient être ordonnées par le procureur ou le tribunal lorsqu'il existait des raisons plausibles de supposer que des objets ou documents relatifs à une procédure pénale en cours se trouvaient dans un local donné. La police pouvait effectuer une perquisition et une saisie sans mandat du procureur dans le cadre d'une enquête sur un délit flagrant (article 409 alinéa 1 et article 171 alinéa 2 CPP).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">36. L'enquêteur, la police ou d'autres autorités administratives compétentes pouvaient effectuer une inspection des lieux, une perquisition et une saisie en dehors d'une procédure pénale, dans le cadre d'une enquête préliminaire destinée à déterminer la nécessité d'engager une procédure, mais uniquement si leur réalisation immédiate était l'unique moyen de recueillir et préserver des preuves (article 191 CPP). Ils devaient dans ce cas immédiatement en informer le procureur.</div><div class="Normal" style="color: black; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14pt;">37. En vertu de l'article 108 CPP, les éléments de preuve matériels étaient gardés jusqu'à la fin de la procédure pénale. Les objets saisis pouvaient être restitués à leur propriétaire avant la fin de la procédure si cela pouvait être fait sans compromettre le bon déroulement de celle-ci. A compter du 1<sup>er</sup> janvier 2000, un éventuel refus de l'enquêteur ou du procureur de les restituer était susceptible d'un recours judiciaire.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">E. Prérogatives du parquet en vertu de l'article 185 CPP</div><div class="Normal" style="color: black; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14pt;">38. En vertu de l<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000023"></a>'article 185 CPP, applicable au moment des faits (cette disposition a été abrogée le 30 mai 2003), le procureur pouvait prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires à empêcher la perpétration d'une infraction pénale dont on pouvait craindre la commission.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fHead" style="color: black;">EN DROIT</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman" style="color: black;">I. SUR LA VIOLATION ALLÉGUÉE DES ARTICLES 8, 9 ET 13 DE LA CONVENTION RELATIVEMENT A L'INCIDENT DU 6 AVRIL 1997</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">39. Les trois requérants personnes physiques allèguent que l'intervention de la police, la perquisition et la saisie effectuées le 6 avril 1997 ont porté atteinte à leur droit au respect de la vie privée et du domicile, ainsi qu'à leur liberté de manifester leur religion, en violation des articles 8, 9 et 13 de la Convention. Les dispositions en question sont libellées comme suit :</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fArticle" style="color: black;">Article 8</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">« 1. Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance.</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">2. Il ne peut y avoir ingérence d'une autorité publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingérence est prévue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une société démocratique, est nécessaire à la sécurité nationale, à la sûreté publique, au bien-être économique du pays, à la défense de l'ordre et à la prévention des infractions pénales, à la protection de la santé ou de la morale, ou à la protection des droits et libertés d'autrui. »</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fArticle" style="color: black;">Article 9</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">« 1. Toute personne a droit à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion ; ce droit implique la liberté de changer de religion ou de conviction, ainsi que la liberté de manifester sa religion ou sa conviction individuellement ou collectivement, en public ou en privé, par le culte, l'enseignement, les pratiques et l'accomplissement des rites.</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">2. La liberté de manifester sa religion ou ses convictions ne peut faire l'objet d'autres restrictions que celles qui, prévues par la loi, constituent des mesures nécessaires, dans une société démocratique, à la sécurité publique, à la protection de l'ordre, de la santé ou de la morale publiques, ou à la protection des droits et libertés d'autrui. »</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fArticle" style="color: black;">Article 13</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">« Toute personne dont les droits et libertés reconnus dans la (...) Convention ont été violés, a droit à l'octroi d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale, alors même que la violation aurait été commise par des personnes agissant dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions officielles. »</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">A. Thèses des parties</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">40. Les requérants soutiennent que l'intervention de la police, la perquisition et la saisie effectuées au domicile de M<sup>me</sup> Sharova n'étaient pas « prévues pas la loi » dans la mesure où elles ont été réalisées en dehors d'une quelconque procédure pénale et que la tenue d'une réunion religieuse même sans enregistrement préalable ne pourrait être considérée comme contraire à la loi bulgare. La loi applicable n'était en outre pas suffisamment claire et prévisible pour satisfaire les exigences des articles 8 et 9 de la Convention.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">41. Ils estiment que de telles mesures, fondées uniquement sur le fait que leur association religieuse n'avait pas été enregistrée, constituaient en tout état de cause une atteinte disproportionnée à leurs droits.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">42. Les juridictions internes ayant refusé de se pencher sur le caractère proportionné ou non de ces mesures, les requérants estiment avoir été privés d'un recours effectif au sens de l'article 13.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">43. Le Gouvernement n'a pas commenté ces griefs.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">B. Sur la recevabilité</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">44. La Cour constate que ces griefs ne sont pas manifestement mal fondés au sens de l'article 35 § 3 de la Convention. Elle relève par ailleurs qu'ils ne se heurtent à aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilité. Il convient donc de les déclarer recevables.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">C. Sur le grief tiré de l'article 9</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005f1-002e" style="color: black;">1. Sur l'existence d'une ingérence</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">45. La Cour examinera d'abord le grief des requérants sous l'angle de l'article 9 de la Convention. Elle rappelle que si la liberté religieuse, au sens de l'article 9 de la Convention, relève d'abord du for intérieur, elle implique de surcroît la liberté de « manifester sa religion » individuellement et en privé, ou de manière collective, en public et dans le cercle de ceux dont on partage la foi. L'article 9 énumère les diverses formes que peut prendre la manifestation d'une religion ou d'une conviction, à savoir le culte, l'enseignement, les pratiques et l'accomplissement des rites (<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Kokkinakis c. Grèce</span>, 25 mai 1993, § 31, série A n<sup>o</sup> 260-A ; <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Kouznetsov et autres c. Russie</span>, n<sup>o</sup> 184/02, § 56, 11 janvier 2007 ;<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> Perry c. Lettonie</span>, n<sup>o</sup> 30273/03, § 52, 8 novembre 2007).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">46. La Cour note que le rassemblement auquel les requérants participaient le 6 avril 1997 était celui d'un groupement religieux dont ils étaient les adeptes et que les autorités ont elles-mêmes considéré qu'il s'agissait d'une réunion religieuse ; les évènements en question entrent dès lors dans le champ d'application de la protection offerte par l'article 9 de la Convention. Dans ces circonstances, l'interruption par la police de cette réunion, la perquisition et la saisie effectuées ont constitué une ingérence dans l'exercice par les requérants de leur droit de manifester leur religion.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">47. Pareille ingérence emporte violation de l'article 9, sauf si elle est prévue par la loi et nécessaire dans une société démocratique pour atteindre un but légitime (<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span>, précité, § 57).</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005f1-002e" style="color: black;">2. Sur la justification de l'ingérence</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">48. Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour l'expression « prévues par la loi » figurant à l'article 9 § 2 de la Convention exige non seulement que les mesures incriminées aient une base en droit interne, mais vise aussi la qualité de la loi en cause. Ainsi, celle-ci doit être suffisamment accessible et prévisible, c'est-à-dire énoncée avec assez de précision pour permettre à l'individu – en s'entourant au besoin de conseils éclairés – de régler sa conduite. Le droit interne doit offrir une certaine protection contre des atteintes arbitraires de la puissance publique aux droits garantis par la Convention. Lorsqu'il s'agit de questions touchant aux droits fondamentaux, la loi irait à l'encontre de la prééminence du droit, l'un des principes fondamentaux d'une société démocratique consacrés par la Convention, si le pouvoir d'appréciation accordé à l'exécutif ne connaissait pas de limite. En conséquence, elle doit définir l'étendue et les modalités d'exercice d'un tel pouvoir avec une netteté suffisante (voir, parmi d'autres, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Hassan et Tchaouch c. Bulgarie </span>[GC], n<sup>o</sup> 30985/96, § 84, CEDH 2000-XI).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">49. En l'occurrence, il ne ressort pas clairement des actes rendus par les autorités bulgares quelle était la base légale de l'intervention de la police au cours de la réunion tenue au domicile de la troisième requérante, de la saisie et la perquisition effectuées. En effet, si le procès-verbal signifié à l'intéressée ainsi que certaines décisions ultérieures faisaient référence à une enquête pénale et aux dispositions du code de procédure pénale relative à l'enquête de flagrance (paragraphes 7, 16 et 35-37 ci-dessus), il n'apparaît pas qu'à un quelconque moment une procédure pénale ait été ouverte au sujet des faits en cause ou à l'encontre des participants à la réunion. Dans ces circonstances, la Cour ne saurait considérer que l'ingérence litigieuse avait pour base légale les dispositions susmentionnées du code de procédure pénale.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">50. Par ailleurs, dans la mesure où les autorités de la police et les juridictions internes dans leurs décisions se sont référées à l'article 185 CPP et à la compétence du parquet en matière de prévention des infractions pénales, la Cour observe que la disposition en question était formulée de manière extrêmement vague. Compte tenu de cette formulation, il apparaît presque impossible de prévoir dans quelles circonstances le parquet pouvait intervenir et quelles étaient les mesures susceptibles d'être entreprises à ce titre. Il en résulte que le parquet avait un pouvoir discrétionnaire presque sans limites, qui paraît incompatible avec le degré minimum de protection exigé par l'impératif de prééminence du droit (voir, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">mutatis mutandis</span>, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. c. Bulgarie</span>, n<sup>o</sup> 57785/00, § 99, 15 juin 2006).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">51. En outre, le droit interne n'était pas clair quant à la possibilité de tenir rassemblement religieux en l'absence d'enregistrement de l'organisation en question – en effet, malgré le principe énoncé à l'article 13 de la Constitution et le fait qu'aucune autre disposition ne prévoyait une telle condition, il existait à l'époque des faits de l'espèce une pratique administrative, cautionnée par une partie de la jurisprudence, dans le sens que de tels rassemblements étaient illégaux (paragraphes 31-34 ci-dessus). Dans ces circonstances, les dispositions du droit interne n'apparaissent pas comme suffisamment claires et précises pour permettre aux requérants de régler leur conduite.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">52. En conclusion, et en l'absence d'autres explications de la part du Gouvernement, la Cour estime que l'ingérence litigieuse était dépourvue d'une base légale en droit interne répondant aux exigences de l'article 9 de la Convention et n'était dès lors pas « prévue par la loi » au sens de cette disposition. Eu égard à ce constat, il n'y a pas lieu de poursuivre l'examen du grief pour rechercher si l'ingérence visait un but légitime et était nécessaire dans une société démocratique (<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-hasan-and-chaush-v-bulgaria.html"><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Hassan et Tchaouch</span></a>, précité, § 88).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">53. Il y a donc eu violation de l'article 9 de la Convention dans le chef des trois requérants personnes physiques.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">D. Sur le grief tiré de l'article 13 combiné avec l'article 9</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">54. La Cour rappelle que l'article 13 de la Convention garantit l'existence en droit interne d'un recours pour les griefs que l'on peut estimer « défendables » au regard de la Convention. Un tel recours doit habiliter l'instance nationale compétente à connaître du contenu du grief fondé sur la Convention et à offrir le redressement approprié, même si les Etats contractants jouissent d'une certaine marge d'appréciation quant à la manière de se conformer aux obligations que fait peser sur eux cette disposition (voir, parmi d'autres, <a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-hasan-and-chaush-v-bulgaria.html"><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Hassan et Tchaouch</span></a>, précité, § 96).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">55. En l'espèce, compte tenu de son constat ci-dessus, la Cour estime que les trois requérants disposaient d'un grief défendable de violation de l'article 9 de la Convention. Le droit interne devait donc leur offrir un recours adéquat.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">56. La Cour observe que les requérants ont introduit une action sur le fondement de la loi sur la responsabilité de l'Etat mais que celle-ci a été rejetée au motif que l'intervention des autorités était conforme à la législation interne. Elle relève cependant que les juridictions internes ne se sont pas penchées sur les arguments des requérants tirés de l'article 9. Or, pour qu'un recours soit effectif au sens de l'article 13, il faut que les autorités internes statuant sur l'affaire examinent le fond du grief tiré de la Convention (<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-glas-nadezhda-eood-and-elenkov.html"><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Glas Nadejda EOOD et Anatoli Elenkov c. Bulgarie</span></a>, n<sup>o</sup> 14134/02, § 69, CEDH 2007-XI (extraits) ; <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Smith et Grady c. Royaume-Uni</span>, n<sup>os</sup> 33985/96 et 33986/96, § 138, CEDH 1999-VI). Cette voie de recours était donc dépourvue d'efficacité en l'espèce.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">57. La Cour note par ailleurs que le Gouvernement n'a invoqué aucun autre recours disponible en droit interne dont les intéressés auraient pu faire usage. Au vu de ces éléments, la Cour conclut que les requérants ne disposaient pas d'un recours susceptible de remédier à leur grief.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">58. Partant, il y a eu violation de l'article 13 combiné avec l'article 9 de la Convention.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">E. Sur le grief tiré de l'article 8 seul et combiné avec l'article 13</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">59. Compte tenu de sa conclusion ci-dessus de violation de l'article 9 et de l'article 13, la Cour n'estime pas nécessaire d'examiner séparément le grief tiré de l'article 8, seul et en combinaison avec l'article 13 de la Convention.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman" style="color: black;">II. SUR LA VIOLATION ALLÉGUÉE DES ARTICLES 9, 11 ET 13 DE LA CONVENTION RELATIVEMENT AU REFUS D'ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ASSOCIATION REQUÉRANTE</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">60. Les requérants soutiennent que le refus des autorités de procéder à l'enregistrement de leur organisation en tant que confession reconnue a emporté violation des articles 9, 11 et 13 de la Convention. Les libellés des articles 9 et 13 figurent au paragraphe 39 ci-dessus. L'article 11 dispose dans ses passages pertinents :</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">« 1. Toute personne a droit (...) à la liberté d'association (...).</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">2. L'exercice de ces droits ne peut faire l'objet d'autres restrictions que celles qui, prévues par la loi, constituent des mesures nécessaires, dans une société démocratique, à la sécurité nationale, à la sûreté publique, à la défense de l'ordre et à la prévention du crime, à la protection de la santé ou de la morale, ou à la protection des droits et libertés d'autrui. (...) »</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">A. Thèses des parties</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">61. Le Gouvernement considère qu'il n'y a pas eu d'ingérence dans l'exercice des droits invoqués par les requérants. Selon lui, les intéressés ne se sont pas vu opposer un refus, qu'il soit exprès ou tacite, d'enregistrer leur organisation en tant que confession. Le Conseil des ministres leur a indiqué qu'il était nécessaire de préciser certains aspects de leur requête afin qu'il soit possible d'examiner la conformité de celle-ci avec les exigences légales, et que la procédure était en cours. Le Gouvernement souligne que les requérants n'ont même pas essayé de se conformer aux indications données et que dans ces circonstances il ne serait pas possible de spéculer sur le sens de la réponse des autorités s'ils l'avaient fait.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">62. Le Gouvernement soutient en outre que les requérants avaient la faculté de demander l'enregistrement de l'association requérante en tant que personne morale en application de l'article 133a de la loi sur les personnes et la famille, ce que beaucoup d'autres associations religieuses avaient fait à l'époque. Les intéressés auraient d'ailleurs fait usage de cette possibilité par la suite puisqu'ils ont créé et enregistré une association en 2002 en application de la nouvelle loi sur les personnes morales à but non lucratif.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">63. Le Gouvernement indique par ailleurs que depuis l'entrée en vigueur de la nouvelle loi sur les confessions le régime d'enregistrement a été libéralisé et que plus de soixante nouvelles communautés ont été enregistrées, l'association requérante n'ayant entrepris aucune démarche en ce sens.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">64. Les requérants estiment que les instructions données dans la lettre du Conseil des ministres étaient vagues et impossibles à suivre. Sans instructions plus précises ils ne pouvaient savoir quelles dispositions des statuts manquaient de clarté ni quel type d'information il fallait ajouter concernant les croyances et les pratiques de leur église, qui était au demeurant une organisation religieuse connue dans le monde entier. Les requérants considèrent qu'ils se trouvaient dès lors dans l'impossibilité de se conformer à ces instructions et qu'ils se sont ainsi vu opposer un refus d'enregistrement de leur confession.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">65. En ce qui concerne la justification de l'ingérence, les requérants soutiennent que celle-ci n'était ni « prévue par la loi », ni proportionnée, que la loi interne laissait une trop grande discrétion à l'administration et qu'aucun motif concret de non-conformité avec la Constitution ou la loi ne leur avait été opposé. Ils considèrent par ailleurs que la création d'une association en 2002 et la possibilité de demander l'enregistrement de leur mouvement religieux en application de la nouvelle loi sur les confessions de 2003 ne sauraient remédier aux faits faisant l'objet de la présente requête, qui datent de plusieurs années auparavant.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">66. Ils maintiennent qu'en refusant d'examiner au fond leur recours, les juridictions internes les ont également privés du recours effectif garanti par l'article 13 de la Convention.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">B. Appréciation de la Cour</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">67. La Cour rappelle que, les communautés religieuses existant traditionnellement sous forme de structures organisées, l'article <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000024"></a>9 doit s'interpréter à la lumière de l'article 11 de la Convention qui protège la vie associative contre toute ingérence injustifiée de l'Etat. Vu sous cet angle, le droit des fidèles à la liberté de religion, qui comprend le droit de manifester sa religion collectivement, suppose que ceux-ci puissent s'associer librement, sans ingérence arbitraire de l'Etat. Ainsi, le refus des autorités internes d'accorder le statut de personne morale à une communauté religieuse peut constituer une ingérence dans l'exercice par les intéressés de leur droit à la liberté d'association<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000025"></a>, mais aussi une ingérence dans le droit à la liberté de religion garanti par l'article <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="01000026"></a> 9 (<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas et autres c. Autriche</span>, n<sup>o</sup> 40825/98, §§ 61-62, 31 juillet 2008 ;<span class="ju--005fpara--002cleft--002cfirst--0020line--003a--0020--00200--0020cm----char--Char"><span class="ju--005fpara--002cleft--002cfirst--0020line--003a--0020--00200--0020cm----char--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> Eglise métropolitaine de Bessarabie et autres c. Moldova</span></span>, n<sup>o</sup> 45701/99, § 105, CEDH 2001-XII ; <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Kimlya et autres c. Russie</span>, n<sup>os</sup> 76836/01 et 32782/03, §§ 81 et 84, CEDH 2009-...).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">68. Concernant la présente espèce, la Cour relève que les requérants ne se sont pas vu opposer un refus formel d'inscription de leur association en tant que confession. Dans le cadre de la procédure d'enregistrement, par une lettre du Conseil des ministres datée du 6 janvier 1999, émise dans le cadre du délai légal d'un mois dont disposait cet organe pour se prononcer, les requérants ont été invités à compléter et à préciser les documents présentés<span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char"> </span>(voir paragraphe 20 ci-dessus). Les requérants n'ont pas répondu à cette demande et ont préféré maintenir le recours en annulation de ce qu'ils estimaient être un refus tacite de l'administration dont ils avaient saisis les juridictions internes. La Cour note qu'il ressort des éléments produits devant elle que les autorités administratives considéraient que la procédure d'enregistrement était en cours, ce qui a été expressément confirmé par la Cour administrative suprême qui a estimé qu'il n'y avait en l'espèce de la part de l'administration aucune décision de refus, qui comme telle aurait été susceptible de recours (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">69. Dans la mesure où les requérants soutiennent qu'il était impossible de satisfaire à la demande formulée dans la lettre du Conseil des ministres en raison du caractère imprécis des indications données, la Cour estime qu'il appartenait aux intéressés d'exprimer ces objections dans leur réponse et, en cas de refus subséquent d'enregistrement, de se pourvoir devant les juridictions compétentes (voir, pour une situation similaire, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Borisov c.</span><span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;"> Bulgarie</span> (déc.), n<sup>o</sup> 62193/00, 26 février 2008). La Cour ne saurait en effet spéculer sur ce qu'aurait été la réponse des autorités compétentes et des juridictions internes si tel avait été le cas.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">70. Dans ces circonstances, en l'absence de décision formelle sur la demande d'enregistrement des requérants la Cour n'est pas convaincue que le retour de cette demande, formalisé dans la lettre du 6 janvier 1999, afin qu'elle soit complétée et précisée ou, plus généralement, l'attitude des autorités compétentes puissent être considérés comme un refus de fait d'enregistrer l'association requérante (voir, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">a contrario</span>, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Ramazanova et autres c. Azerbaïdjan</span>, n<sup>o</sup> 44363/02, §§ 56-58, 1<sup>er</sup> février 2007, où la Cour est parvenue à une telle conclusion compte tenu des retards importants, près de quatre ans au total, accusés par les autorités à la suite des retours successifs de la demande d'enregistrement d'une association).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">71. La Cour relève par ailleurs que dès le 1<sup>er</sup> janvier 2001, la nouvelle loi sur les personnes morales à but non lucratif <span class="Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char">permettait la constitution des associations religieuses en tant que personnes morales sans la condition d'obtenir l'agrément du Conseil de ministres. Les requérants ont d'ailleurs fait usage de cette possibilité et ont constitué une association en application de cette loi en janvier 2002 (paragraphe 24 ci-dessus).</span></div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">72. Au vu de ce qui précède, la Cour estime que le grief des requérants tirés des articles 9 et 11 des la Convention est manifestement mal fondé et doit être rejeté en application de l'article 35 §§ 3 a) et 4 de la Convention (voir, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">mutatis mutandis</span>, <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Lajda et autres c. République tchèque</span> (déc.), n<sup>o</sup> 20984/05, 3 mars 2009).</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">73. Dans ces circonstances, les requérants ne disposaient pas d'un « grief défendable » de méconnaissance des articles 9 et 11 de la Convention et l'article 13 ne trouve pas à s'appliquer. Il s'ensuit que le grief tiré de cette disposition est incompatible <span class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char" style="font-style: italic;">ratione materiae</span> et doit être rejeté en application de l'article 35 §§ 3 et 4.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman" style="color: black;">III. SUR L'APPLICATION DE L'ARTICLE 41 DE LA CONVENTION</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">74. Aux termes de l'article 41 de la Convention,</div><div class="Ju-005fQuot" style="color: black;">« Si la Cour déclare qu'il y a eu violation de la Convention ou de ses Protocoles, et si le droit interne de la Haute Partie contractante ne permet d'effacer qu'imparfaitement les conséquences de cette violation, la Cour accorde à la partie lésée, s'il y a lieu, une satisfaction équitable. »</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">A. Dommage</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black; margin-top: 12pt;">75. S'agissant des violations alléguées de la Convention en relation avec l'incident du 6 avril 1997, M. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3985633009255324662" name="HIT6"></a><b>Boychev</b> et M. Sergeev réclament 2 000 euros (EUR) chacun et M<sup>me</sup> Sharova réclame 3 000 EUR au titre du préjudice moral qu'ils auraient subi.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">76. Pour ce qui est du refus d'enregistrement de l'Église de l'unification en tant que confession, les requérants réclament un montant global de 5 000 EUR pour le dommage moral subi par les trois requérants personnes physiques et par les autres membres de l'association requérante. Ils demandent que ce montant soit versé à M. Sergeev pour le compte du groupement religieux.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">77. Le Gouvernement n'a pas soumis de commentaires.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">78. Statuant en équité, comme le prévoit l'article 41, la Cour considère qu'il y a lieu d'octroyer 2 000 EUR à chacun des trois requérants personnes physiques, soit un total de 6 000 EUR, au titre du préjudice moral pour la violation constatée des articles 9 et 13.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">B. Frais et dépens</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">79. Les requérants demandent également 500 EUR pour les frais d'avocat engagés devant les juridictions internes et 4 970 EUR pour ceux engagés devant la Cour. Ils produisent un décompte du travail effectué par leurs avocats dans le cadre de la procédure devant la Cour, à hauteur de 41 heures pour M<sup>e</sup> Meneva et de 30 heures pour M<sup>e</sup> Grozev, soit un total de 71 heures au taux horaire de 70 euros. Ils demandent que les montants accordés à ce titre soient directement versés à leurs avocats.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">80. Le Gouvernement n'a pas soumis de commentaires.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">81. Selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, un requérant ne peut obtenir le remboursement de ses frais et dépens que dans la mesure où se trouvent établis leur réalité, leur nécessité et le caractère raisonnable de leur taux. En l'espèce, la Cour relève qu'aucun justificatif n'a été produit par les requérants pour appuyer la demande relative aux frais et dépens de la procédure nationale et la rejette. En ce qui concerne la procédure devant la Cour, compte tenu des documents en sa possession et des critères susmentionnés, et notamment du fait qu'une partie des griefs a été déclarée irrecevable, la Cour estime raisonnable la somme de 2 500 EUR et l'accorde aux requérants.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fA" style="color: black;">C. Intérêts moratoires</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm" style="color: black;">82. La Cour juge approprié de calquer le taux des intérêts moratoires sur le taux d'intérêt de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne majoré de trois points de pourcentage.</div><div class="Ju-005fH-005fHead" style="color: black;">PAR CES MOTIFS, LA COUR</div><div class="Ju-005fList" style="color: black;">1. <span class="Ju-005fList--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Déclare,</span> à la majorité, la requête recevable quant aux griefs tirés des articles 8, 9 et 13 en ce qui concerne l'intervention de la police lors de la réunion du 6 avril 1997 et irrecevable pour le surplus ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList" style="color: black; margin-top: 12pt;">2. <span class="Ju-005fList--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Dit,</span> à l'unanimité, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 9 de la Convention dans le chef des trois requérants personnes physiques ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList" style="color: black; margin-top: 12pt;">3. <span class="Ju-005fList--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Dit,</span> à l'unanimité, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 13 combiné avec l'article 9 de la Convention ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList" style="color: black; margin-top: 12pt;">4. <span class="Ju-005fList--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Dit,</span> à l'unanimité, qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'examiner séparément le grief tiré de l'article 8, seul et en combinaison avec l'article 13 de la Convention ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList" style="color: black; margin-top: 12pt;">5. <span class="Ju-005fList--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Dit,</span> à l'unanimité,</div><div class="Ju-005fList-005fa" style="color: black;">a) que l'Etat défendeur doit verser aux requérants, dans les trois mois à compter du jour où l'arrêt sera devenu définitif conformément à l'article 44 § 2 de la Convention, les sommes suivantes, à convertir en levs bulgares selon le taux applicable au moment du règlement :</div><div class="Ju-005fList-005fi" style="color: black;">i. 2 000 EUR (deux mille euros) à chacun des trois requérants personnes physiques, soit 6 000 EUR au total, pour dommage moral, plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d'impôt ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList-005fi" style="color: black;">ii. 2 500 EUR (deux mille cinq cents euros) pour frais et dépens, plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d'impôt par les requérants, à verser sur le compte désigné par les avocats des requérants ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList-005fa" style="color: black;">b) qu'à compter de l'expiration dudit délai et jusqu'au versement, ces montants seront à majorer d'un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne applicable pendant cette période, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage ;</div><div class="Ju-005fList" style="color: black; margin-top: 12pt;">6. <span class="Ju-005fList--Char" style="font-style: italic;">Rejette,</span> à l'unanimité, la demande de satisfaction équitable pour le surplus.</div><div class="Ju-005fPara-005fLast" style="color: black;">Fait en français, puis communiqué par écrit le 27 janvier 2011, en application de l'article 77 §§ 2 et 3 du règlement.</div><div class="Ju-005fSigned" style="color: black; text-indent: 36pt;">Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen<br />
Greffière Président</div><br />
<div class="Ju-005fHeader" style="color: black; text-indent: 36pt;">ARRÊT BOYCHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE</div><br />
<div class="Ju-005fHeader" style="color: black; text-indent: 36pt;">ARRÊT BOYCHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE </div><br />
<br />
<style type="text/css">
p { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }h1 { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }h2 { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }h3 { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }h4 { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }h5 { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }h6 { margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; }td p { padding-top: 1pt; padding-bottom: 1pt; }th p { padding-top: 1pt; padding-bottom: 1pt; }.Normal { text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Normal--Char { font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fH-005fHead { margin-top: 36pt; margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 14pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman { margin-top: 18pt; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 17pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -17pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm { text-align: justify; text-indent: 14pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char { font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fH-005fA { margin-top: 18pt; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 29pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -17pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fH-005f1-002e { margin-top: 12pt; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -15pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none; }.Header { text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration: none; }.Footer { text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration: none; }.normal----char { }.normal----char--Char { }.Ju-005fCase { text-align: justify; text-indent: 14pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fHeader { text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration: none; }.Page-0020Number { font-size: 9pt; }.Ju-005fJudges { text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fJudges--Char { font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Strong { font-weight: bold; }.Strong--Char { font-weight: bold; }.Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char { font-size: 12pt; }.Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char { font-size: 12pt; }.Ju-005fQuot { margin-top: 6pt; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 21pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none; }.ju--005fpara----char { }.ju--005fpara----char--Char { }.Ju-005fH-005fArticle { margin-top: 12pt; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; }.ju--005fpara--002cleft--002cfirst--0020line--003a--0020--00200--0020cm----char { }.ju--005fpara--002cleft--002cfirst--0020line--003a--0020--00200--0020cm----char--Char { }.Ju-005fList { margin-left: 17pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -17pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fList--Char { font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fList-005fa { margin-left: 17pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fList-005fi { margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fPara-005fLast { margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }.Ju-005fSigned { margin-top: 36pt; text-indent: 0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','Arial'; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; }
</style> </div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-11433511938978760972010-12-28T16:36:00.004+01:002010-12-28T16:48:04.256+01:00EIGHT BULGARIAN JUDGEMENTS on Art 9 ECHR & European Court of Human Rights in Strassbourg<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/eight-bulgarian-judgements-on-art-9.html" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DA5_jr72i-M/TDOUwFpFS4I/AAAAAAAAAvc/oNk7pRfV10M/bks1_gl.png" /></a><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-holy-synod-of-bulgarian_27.html"><b>I.</b> CASE OF HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY) AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA</a> (just satisfaction) '<b>echr 9 bg-7b</b>'<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-holy-synod-of-bulgarian.html"><b>II.</b> CASE OF HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY) AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-7a</b>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-glas-nadezhda-eood-and-elenkov.html"><b>III.</b> CASE OF GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ELENKOV v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-6</b>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-ivanova-v-bulgaria-echr-9-bg-5.html"><b>IV.</b> CASE OF IVANOVA v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-5</b>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/supreme-holy-council-of-muslim.html"><b>V.</b> SUPREME HOLY COUNCIL OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-4</b>)</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-lotter-and-lotter-v-bulgaria.html"><b>VI.</b> CASE OF LOTTER AND LOTTER v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-3</b>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-stefanov-v-bulgaria-echr-9-bg-2.html"><b>VII.</b> CASE OF STEFANOV v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-2</b>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-of-hasan-and-chaush-v-bulgaria.html"><b>VIII.</b> CASE OF HASAN AND CHAUSH v. BULGARIA</a> (<b>echr 9 bg-1</b>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-16084350845374227412010-12-27T17:11:00.000+01:002010-12-27T17:11:23.737+01:00CASE OF HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY) AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (just satisfaction) 'echr 9 bg-7b'<div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FIFTH SECTION</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>CASE OF HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN </b><span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><b><br />
</b></span><b>ORTHODOX CHURCH (METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY) </b><span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><b><br />
</b></span><b>AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA</b></div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Applications nos. 412/03 and 35677/04)</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">JUDGMENT</span></b></div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">(just satisfaction)</span></b></div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">16 September 2010</span></div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 15.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Peer Lorenzen, President, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Renate Jaeger, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Karel Jungwiert, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Rait Maruste, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mark Villiger, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 22 June 2010,</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in two applications against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). Application no. 412/03 was lodged by MetropolitanInokentiy on behalf of the “alternative Synod” of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, one of its two rival leaderships (“the applicant organisation”). Application no. 35677/04 was lodged by six individuals, Christian Orthodox believers who used to be employed by the applicant organisation.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. In a judgment delivered on 22 January 2009 (“the principal judgment”), which became final on 5 June 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of all the applicants’ rights under Article 9 in that “the pertinent provisions of the 2002 Religious Denominations Act, which did not meet the Convention standard of quality of the law, and their implementation through sweeping measures forcing the community to unite under the leadership favoured by the Government went beyond any legitimate aim and interfered with the organisational autonomy of the Church and the applicants’ rights under Article 9 of the Convention in a manner which cannot be accepted as lawful and necessary in a democratic society, despite the wide margin of appreciation left to the national authorities”. It also found that no separate issue arose in respect of the complaints of the applicant organisation under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there had been no violation of the same provisions in respect of the six individual applicants. It further found no violation of Article 13 in respect of any of the applicants (see Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 412/03 and 35677/04, §§ 159, 160, 169, 172, 174 and 179 and points 1-4 of the operative provisions, 22 January 2009).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. In their submissions under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought, inter alia, an award for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach. However, it awarded the applicants 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses (ibid., §§ 182, 188 and 189 and points 5-7 of the operative provisions).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. The applicants and the Government each filed observations.</div><div style="font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. Article 41 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties’ submissions</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. The applicants</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. The applicants submitted that the Court should order a return to the status quo ante as it existed prior to the events which violated Article 9 of the Convention. In particular, they formulated the following claims:</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">(i) The restitution to the applicant organisation of 107 properties which were taken away from it as a result of the State action violating Article 9 of the Convention, and, failing such restitution, the payment of adequate pecuniary compensation in the amount of EUR 678,054,000;</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">(ii) The payment of EUR 194,708 to the six individual applicants in application no. 35677/04 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the fact that they lost their employment as a consequence of the State interference in the internal affairs of the Church;</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">(iii) The restitution to those concerned of all personal and legal documents, such as employment contracts and books and property deeds, retained as a result of the 2004 forced evictions from Church premises;</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">(iv) The payment of EUR 4,262,400 to the applicant organisation as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by 121 persons (64 clergy members and 57 auxiliary personnel) who lost their positions with the Church allegedly as a consequence of the State interference in its internal affairs, these persons being applicants in other applications pending before the Court (Pantusheva and Others, nos. 40047/04 et al. and Asenova and Others, no. 25729/09);</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">(v) The payment of EUR 1,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the suffering caused to over 720 clergy members, staff and believers belonging to the applicant organisation and the prejudice caused to the applicant organisation itself. The 720 or more persons in question are applicants in the above-mentioned cases of Pantusheva and Others and Asenova and Others, pending before the Court; and</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">(vi) The repeal of sections 10, 15(2), 18 and 36 of the Religious Denominations Act and of paragraphs 2 and 3 of its transitional provisions.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">8. The applicants submitted the following arguments in support of their claims.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">9. They stressed that the violation found concerned unlawful and unjustified interference in the internal organisation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, including unlawful and arbitrary action by prosecutors and the police to remove the applicants from temples and other church property and considered, therefore, that nothing short of undoing the result of those actions would be compatible with observance of the law. Thus, the applicant organisation’s control over the temples and other property should be restored and, once this was done, the Holy Synod presided over by Patriarch Maxim would be free to claim the disputed properties before the domestic courts which – as the Court had noted in the principal judgment - were the only proper authorities to decide on private property disputes.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">10. The applicants further stated that failing restitution of the temples and other premises, the Court should award compensation corresponding to their full value.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">11. The applicants submitted a list of Church premises from which persons belonging to the applicant organisation had been forcibly removed in July 2004 and opinions of real estate experts on the value of some of the properties. The applicants acknowledged that disputes might arise as regards ownership rights and the value of the properties and suggested that, as a last resort, the Court might consider directing that a special commission be established to deal with these issues.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">12. As to the Government’s submission that in 1992 and for several years thereafter the applicants had occupied unlawfully some of the buildings at issue, the applicants submitted that no such findings had been made by the domestic authorities and that this question was in any event without relevance to the issue currently before the Court, namely reparation for the serious violations of the applicants’ rights committed by the authorities in 2002, 2004 and the years thereafter.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">13. In respect of their claims concerning the alleged loss of employment and livelihood, the applicants submitted a statement by one of the applicants, the former accountant of the applicant organisation, and documents concerning the income and employment status of some of the clergy and Church staff. The applicants emphasised that they were unable to present further documentation as the applicant organisation’s files had never been restored following the police action of 21 July 2004. The authorities should therefore be ordered to secure the return of the confiscated documents.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. The respondent Government</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">14. The Government argued that the finding of a violation of Article 9 was sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">15. In the event of the Court deciding to award compensation, the Government stated that it should be limited to the direct and immediate damage resulting from the violation of the Convention found in the present case. As the Court had only found a breach of Article 9 and had rejected the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants were not entitled to claim restitution of properties or compensation for them.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">16. The Government further explained that the buildings claimed by the applicants belonged to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian people and that the authorities had no power to order their restitution. Some of them had been built centuries ago. Moreover, the applicants, who had occupied these buildings unlawfully in 1992 and the years thereafter, were not entitled to profit from their own wrongdoing.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">17. As regards the amount claimed in respect of the value of the temples, the Government stated that the expert assessments submitted by the applicants were arbitrary and deceitful, as a number of the buildings in question were historic landmarks which enjoyed special legal protection. Such buildings did not have a “market” value.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">18. The Government’s position on the alleged loss of income was that it was unrelated to the violation of the Convention found in the present case and that in any event the persons concerned were free to claim unpaid salaries or other compensation in the domestic courts. The Government also submitted copies of documents demonstrating that a number of the persons concerned had realised other income after the events complained of and could not, therefore, maintain that as a result of the events of July 2004 they had suffered damage corresponding to their salaries. Finally, the lists of persons concerned were inaccurate, unclear and not supported by evidence.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">19. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Government asked the Court to take into consideration the fact that Metropolitan Inokentiy had participated in the events at the beginning of the 1990s and had therefore contributed by his behaviour to “the events that had followed”. The Government also averred that the claims were excessive and unclear in so far as they concerned unspecified persons who were not applicants in the present case. In the Government’s view, EUR 3,000 for Metropolitan Inokentiy and EUR 1,000 for each of the six individual applicants would be sufficient just satisfaction.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">20. As regards general measures in execution of the Court’s judgment on the merits, the Government expressed the view that the applicants should seek their reintegration into the Bulgarian Orthodox Church presided over by Patriarch Maxim, the canonical leader. Some of the applicants’ former adherents had already done so. In so far as the applicants sought the reinstatement of clergy members in their functions in specific temples, this was an issue to be decided by the Church in accordance with canon. The Government, being neutral in religious matters, could not interfere with such internal Church matters, although they had expressed willingness to help through mediation.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">21. As to the applicants’ request for legislative amendments, the Government submitted that Parliament was independent in its assessment of whether legislation must be amended. One of the relevant provisions, section 118 of the Judiciary Act 1994, which had served as the basis for the prosecutors’ orders in the applicants’ case, had been repealed in 2007. As to the Religious Denominations Act 2002, it reflected the “national view” that its provisions did not contravene Article 9 of the Convention and were based on millennial traditions of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In particular, it was not true that the Act left it to State organs to determine who the canonical leader of the Church was.</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court’s assessment</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Scope of the case</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">22. As it did in the principal judgment, the Court finds it necessary to reiterate that the scope of the present case is limited to the complaints submitted by the applicant organisation, the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church presided over by Metropolitan Inokentiy, and the six individual applicants (see paragraph 1 above and paragraphs 82 and 83 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Claim for a return to the status quo ante</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">23. A judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the violation and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. If the internal law allows only partial reparation to be made, Article 41 of the Convention gives the Court the power to award compensation to the party injured by the act or omission that has led to the finding of a violation of the Convention. The Court enjoys a certain discretion in the exercise of that power, as the adjective “just” and the phrase “if necessary” attest. Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, that is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of the alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, that is reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the violation, and other non-pecuniary loss. In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">24. The Court observes that as a result of the violation of Article 9 in the present case the applicant organisation was prevented from continuing to manage the affairs of part of the Christian Orthodox community in Bulgaria and thus lost control over temples and other buildings (see paragraphs 102, 107-110, 112, 139, 140, 156 and 159 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">25. The applicants considered that, therefore, undoing the consequences of the violation of the Convention required the restitution of the buildings concerned and, in general, a return to the status quo ante.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">26. As the Court has already noted, however, there was no dispossession of the legal person of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church by the State. The violation of the Convention found in the present case concerned State interference in the internal organisation of the Church and its leadership by way of legislation and judicial and prosecutors’ decisions (see paragraphs 159 and 173 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">27. Furthermore, as the Court noted in the principal judgment, at all the relevant times the applicant organisation and the leadership headed by Patriarch Maxim were de facto two rival structures, each of them considering itself to be the legitimate personification of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Neither the applicant organisation nor the supporters of Patriarch Maxim have ever sought legal personality or a separate existence from the Church. Each of the two rival groups regarded the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as one indivisible whole in law and in canon and sought recognition as its sole legitimate leadership (see paragraph 170 of the principal judgment). The applicant organisation, the leadership which was ousted, cannot claim 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.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">28. In addition, it is noteworthy that the situation that obtained prior to the State interference in the affairs of the Church was not one flowing from clear rules but a de facto state of affairs which evolved in contradictory directions between 1992 and 2002 and, most importantly, was ultimately dependent on decisions to be taken by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see paragraphs 14-41 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">29. In these circumstances the principle of restitutio in integrum cannot 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.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">30. In the Court’s view, therefore, just satisfaction in the present case must mainly take the form of compensation to be paid by the State.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">31. In so far as the applicants also claim restitution of personal documents, the Court notes that they have not shown that these were retained by the State authorities.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. Damage</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(a) The applicant organisation</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(i) Pecuniary damage</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">32. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 25-28 above, the Court considers that the alternative leadership of the Church (the applicant organisation) 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 violated Article 9 of the Convention did not encroach on property rights but interfered with the free choice of the Church’s leadership (see paragraphs 159, 170 and 173 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">33. The claims of the applicant organisation for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage must therefore be dismissed.</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(ii) Non-pecuniary damage</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">34. Noting that the unjustified and unlawful State action against the “alternative Synod” resulted in its practical elimination (see paragraph 156 of the principal judgment) and having regard to the fact that it is not possible to restore the situation that obtained prior to the violation of the Convention found in the present case (see paragraphs 24-29 above), the Court considers that the applicant organisation, as the leadership of all those who were affected, must be paid compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">35. The absence of legal personality of the applicant organisation is not an obstacle in this respect (see, in particular, Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 116, 16 December 2004; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 146, ECHR 2001-XII; and Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and Others v. Moldova, no. 952/03, § 61, 27 February 2007).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">36. In determining the amount the Court has had regard to the awards made in the above-mentioned judgments, which disclose certain similarities with the present case. It considers, however, that a significantly higher award is justified in this case having regard to the nature and scale of the violation of the applicant organisation’s rights under Article 9. In particular, the State interference was the result of legislative provisions adopted with the aim of forcing the religious community to “unite” and those provisions were enforced through arbitrary judicial decisions and the massive unlawful police operation of 21 July 2004, when the Chief Public Prosecutor sent the police to “resolve” an intra-communal dispute by evicting hundreds of religious ministers and believers from more than fifty churches and other buildings throughout the country (see paragraphs 57-60, 107-109 and 140 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">37. In determining the award, the Court also has regard to the fact that the applicant organisation’s claims are made on behalf of the religious community it leads (see paragraph 7 above). An ecclesiastical or religious body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its adherents the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention (see Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-VII).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">38. Lastly, the Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the applicants had their share of responsibility in the impugned events and should not, therefore, be awarded just satisfaction. In so far as this argument is based on the Government’s view that the alternative Synod was not canonical, the Court refers to its conclusions in the principal judgment that in a democratic society canonical legitimacy, which is solely for the religious community to determine, cannot justify the sweeping measures taken against the applicants by unlawful means against a background of divisions and an internal leadership dispute within the Church. Furthermore, in so far as the Government refer to the unlawful decisions of 1992 which proclaimed the removal of Patriarch Maxim, these were State acts (see paragraphs 17, 128, 137, 142, 147-149 and 155 of the principal judgment).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">39. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant organisation EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be paid to Metropolitan Inokentiy, its leader at the relevant time, for the benefit of the religious community.</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; min-height: 15.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(b) The six individual applicants</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(i) Pecuniary damage</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">40. The six individual applicants were employees of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. They were not religious ministers (see paragraph 3 of the principal judgment). With regard to their claim for compensation for loss of salary, the Court observes that none of these applicants has sought to enforce their rights under the Labour Code through the courts. The applicants’ claim being that since 21 July 2004 they have not been allowed to continue working and have not been paid, there is nothing in the file to indicate that they could not bring an action under the Labour Code.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">41. In so far as the six individual applicants may be understood to be claiming that as believers they felt unable to continue to perform their functions, and thus lost income, as a result of the fact that the State forcibly imposed on them religious leaders whom they did not accept as legitimate, the Court considers that the causal link between the violation of Article 9 found in this case and the loss of income claimed is merely indirect. The violation found concerned the applicants’ freedom of religion and their right to a religious life free from unjustified State interference. It did not concern their professional activities as employees of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">42. The claims of the individual applicants for pecuniary damage must therefore be dismissed (see, for a similar approach, Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 118, 15 September 2009).</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(ii) Non-pecuniary damage</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">43. The Court observes that in previous cases concerning forced change of leadership of a religious community it has awarded sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage only to the ousted leaders or members of governing bodies (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 7 and 123; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, §§ 9 and 121, ECHR 2000-XI; and, mutatis mutandis, Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, §§ 11 and 61, ECHR 1999-IX).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">44. Moreover, in the case of Hasan and Chaush, cited above, the Court rejected the claim for non-pecuniary damage submitted by the second applicant, a believer and employee of the religious organisation who was not a religious leader, taking the view that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted sufficient just satisfaction for him (ibid., § 121).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">45. The same conclusion is valid in respect of the six individual applicants. As the Court has previously stated in the context of Article 13, individual believers’ interests in respect of claims concerning State interference with the organisation of a religious community can be safeguarded by their turning to their leaders and supporting any legal action which the latter may initiate (see Hasan and Chaush, cited above, § 98). Similarly, in the Court’s view, since the leadership directly affected by the violation of Article 9 in the present case claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the religious community it leads, there is no room for separate awards to the six individual applicants.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">46. The remaining claims for just satisfaction submitted by the six individual applicants must therefore be dismissed.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">4. Other measures</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">47. The Court reiterates that, in the context of the execution of judgments in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order. Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with it (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">48. Contracting States’ duty in international law to comply with the requirements of the Convention may require action to be taken by any State authority, including the legislature (see, as a recent example, Viaşu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, 9 December 2008).</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">49. In the principal judgment, the Court made the following relevant findings:</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“In the Court’s view, the 2002 Act did not meet the Convention standards of quality of the law, in so far as its provisions disregarded the fact that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was deeply divided and left open to arbitrary interpretation the issue of legal representation of the Church ... Moreover, although the ex lege recognition of the Church cannot be seen as incompatible with Article 9 in principle, its introduction in a time of deep division was tantamount to forcing the believers to accept a single leadership against their will. Those provisions of the 2002 Act – still in force - continue to generate legal uncertainty, as it can be seen from the contradictory judicial decisions that have been adopted and the events that have unfolded since the Act’s entry into force ...</div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">In addition, as the Court found above, the massive evictions carried out in July 2004 by prosecutors’ orders cannot be considered lawful, having regard to the provisions of the Bulgarian Constitution on freedom of religion, the lack of clear basis to identify the ‘valid’ leadership of the Church and the fact that they purported to ‘resolve’ private disputes, including about property, which fell under the jurisdiction of the courts ...”</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">50. In view of these findings, in order to assist the respondent Government in the execution of their duty under Article 46 of the Convention, the Court expresses the view that the general measures in execution of its judgments in this case should include such amendment to the Religious Denominations Act 2002 as to ensure that leadership conflicts in religious communities are left to be resolved by the religious community concerned and that disputes about the civil consequences of such conflicts are decided by the courts.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">5. Costs and expenses</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">51. The applicants did not claim any costs incurred after the principal judgment.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">6. Default interest</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">52. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">1. Holds by six votes to one</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant organisation, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, this amount being payable into the bank account of the applicant organisation’s representative, Metropolitan Inokentiy (Mr Ivan Stoyanov Petrov);</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">2. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 September 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen <span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Registrar President</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Kalaydjieva is annexed to this judgment.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: right; text-indent: 18.0px;">P.L.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: right; text-indent: 18.0px;">C.W.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KALAYDJIEVA</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">I fully subscribe to the conclusions reached in the principal judgment in the present case, which reflect the long history and regrettable history of state interference with the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Court’s conclusions in this case come hardly as a surprise after the judgments of the Court in the cases of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC] (no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000 XI) and of Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria (no. 39023/97, 16 December 2004), and Resolution 1390 (2004) of PACE in regard of the 2002 Denominations Act. In my view the absence of legal certainty and the events following the adoption the 2002 Denomination Act demonstrate a continuing potential risk that the “recognised”, rival or future candidate central leaders will remain equally vulnerable to the imposed preferences of each future government to step in power.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having noted that the parties in the two present applications no. 412/03 and 35677/04, relied among other things, on arguments concerning the subject matter of other applications (see § 82 of the principal judgment), the Court examined all relevant information and concluded that “there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11 (see § 160). In the operative part it held that “there has been a violation of Article 9 in respect of all applicants”, that is, the “applicant organisation” – the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) in the first of the joined applications no. 412/03 - and the six (remaining after the withdrawal of Mr. Balachev’s complaints) individual applicants in application no. 35677/04 who complained among other things, of their forceful eviction from the St. Paraskeva Church in Sofia in 2004.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In its principal judgment the Court did not specify its findings as to the victim status of the different applicants and/or the manner and the extent to which each of them was affected by any aspect of the generally described interference or how far they sustained distress and suffering as a result. These circumstances are the major elements scrutinized by the Court in the determination of the appropriate compensation in each individual case. I agree with the majority’s views and conclusions in rejecting the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damages including the restoration of a high number of temples, monasteries and other estates or their “market price”. I also fully share the view that the exceptional scale and the gravity of the sweeping measures of forced police evictions in the present case call for the determination of a higher amount to compensate the suffering sustained.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">My misgivings concern some of the elements taken into consideration in the determination of the applicant’s suffering and their appropriate compensation. As correctly indicated “in previous similar cases concerning forced change of leadership of a religious community, [the Court] has awarded sums in respect of [resulting] non-pecuniary damage only to the ousted leaders or members of governing bodies”(see § 43 of the present judgment with further reference). Indeed, the Court defined such individuals as directly affected by a violation of “Article 9 interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention” and has so far not interpreted Article 9 of the Convention to involve or guarantee an individual right to a preferred spiritual leader or a “right to a free choice of Church leadership” (see § 32). In my view - even if the rights of individual believers or followers of a certain spiritual leader under Article 9 may be considered affected by the authorities’ interference with their leadership, the level of their suffering may hardly be compared to that of the leaders concerned. I regret the fact that the majority failed to express their views on these aspects of the situation of the six individual applicants in Appl. no. 35677/04 and instead follow a logic which placed the compensation allegedly claimed by the first applicant organisation among the elements to determine the appropriate award for the different applicants.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">It should be noted in the interest of fairness that in reality neither the “applicant organisation”, nor Metropolitan Inokentiy claimed compensation on behalf of other individual applicants in the present two or the 40 pending applications before the Court. “In particular [the applicants, or more precisely – their common legal represntative], formulated the following claims (see § 7 of the present judgment):... (v) EUR 1,000,000 for non-pecuniary damages in respect of the suffering caused to over 720 clergy members, staff and believers belonging to the applicant organization and the prejudice caused to the applicant organization itself. The 720 or more persons in question are applicants in the ... mentioned cases of Pantusheva and Others and Asenova and Others, pending before the Court”. The first applicant also never claimed that it represented these individuals for the purposes of the Convention proceedings or within the meaning of any national or canonical rules. In my view the fact the applicants’ claims were formulated in such a global and imprecise manner may not be interpreted as a request by the first applicant on behalf of “all those who are affected”, or leading necessarily to the finding “that the applicant’s organisation’s claims are made on behalf of the religious community it leads” (see § 37 with reference to the above quoted § 7). Such a finding may also easily, but unfairly, leave the incorrect impression that the first applicant’s representative pursued personal financial interests at the expense of other individuals’ suffering. Even if indeed made (and it was not), an imprecisely formulated claim may neither bind the Court, nor substitute its reasoning in individualizing the suffering and the appropriate compensation of the applicants under Article 41 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">While noting correctly the principle that “in previous cases [the Court] has awarded non-pecuniary damage only to ousted leaders or members of governing bodies” (see §§ 43 and 44), the majority considered that “the applicant organisation must be paid compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as the leadership of all those who were affected” (§ 34) and that further on “there is no room for separate awards to the six applicants, since the leadership directly affected by the violation of Article 9 in the present case claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the religious community it leads”.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Unlike in the case of “Hasan and Chaush”, where the Convention bodies discussed at length the two applicants’ victim status (Report of the Commission adopted on 26 October 1999), the manner in which they were affected by the impugned interference, their position as “active members of the religious community” and persons who “actively participated in religious life” and “continued to work facing enormous difficulties” as well as the distress suffered and the individual non-pecuniary damage sustained (see §§ 63, 119 and 121 of this judgment as well as the joint partly dissenting opinion of judges Tulkens, Casadevall, Bonello, Straznicka, Greve and Maruste), the majority in the present case failed to provide detailed views on the six applicants’ situation and redirected its consideration to the first applicant, relying on some similarity with the Court’s view on ecclesiastical bodies’ locus standi (§ 37). In my view that “an ecclesiastic body or religious body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its adherents the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention” – as found in Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC] (no. 27417/95, ECHR 2000 VII) - does not necessarily mean that the first applicant organisation did or could have successfully exercised the other individual applicant’s rights under Article 41. In my view the question in the present case was not whether the applicant organisation may claim the rights of its followers under Article 9, but the extent to which the declared violation of this provision affected each of the applicants or resulted in any distress or suffering, which calls for pecuniary compensation.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The observed collective determination of this compensation resembles a novel “class action” approach” and appears to unjustifiably “personify” the claimed individual sufferings by awarding a global compensation payable to “the leadership of all those affected”. The majority’s finding that “since the directly affected leadership claimed compensation for the religious community, there is no room for separate awards to individual applicants” (see § 45) is apparently equally applicable to “all those affected” and seems to summarily preempt the consideration of their complaints.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In my view the intended Solomonic solution of the original dispute between individuals and the authorities in fact transforms it into a dispute among the complaining community and redirects its resolution to its leader.</div><div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">This impression is strongly supported by the fact that the majority awarded this global amount “for the benefit of the religious community” (see § 39) – a view that confronts the applicant Metropolitan Inokentiy with a bitter dilemma: whether to accept the unsolicited authorization to complete the exercise of the Court’s duty to determine an appropriate part of the obtained global award for each of “all those affected“, or – failing to do so in the absence of clear judicial guidelines – to use the award in providing a nation-wide mess of pottage for the entire “religious community” without distinguishing between his spiritual followers and opponents. In the circumstances of the present case it is questionable whether this generously proposed global solution does justice to the individual applicants, or in fact risks to further deepen the division amongst believers along new lines.</div><div style="font: 12.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-85299924974187996472010-12-27T16:59:00.001+01:002010-12-27T17:13:18.856+01:00CASE OF HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY) AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-7a)<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FIFTH SECTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>CASE OF HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>ORTHODOX CHURCH (METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY)</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Applications nos. 412/03 and 35677/04)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: #f4cccc;">JUDGMENT</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: #f4cccc;">(merits)</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: #f4cccc;">22 January 2009</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">FINAL</span></b></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">05/06/2009</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"> Peer Lorenzen, President, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Rait Maruste, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Karel Jungwiert, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Renate Jaeger, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mark Villiger, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2008,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in two applications against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. Application no. 412/03 was lodged on 12 December 2002 by Metropolitan Inokentiy on behalf of the “alternative Synod” of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, one of its two rival leaderships (“the applicant organisation”) (see paragraphs 14-19 below).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. Application no. 35677/04 was lodged on 28 September 2004 by six Bulgarian nationals, Mr Assen Iordanov Milushev, Mr Petar Ivanov Petrov, Mr Stoyan Ivanov Gruichev, Ms Liubka Borisova Nikolova, Ms Rositsa Danailova Grozdanova and Ms Liliana Markova Shtereva. They are Christian Orthodox believers who used to be employed by the applicant organisation. They all live in Sofia.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr L. Popov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs M. Karadjova and Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. The applicants alleged, in particular, that the State authorities had arbitrarily intervened in the internal leadership dispute in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (“the Church”).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. Third-party comments were received from the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church presided over by Patriarch Maxim, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). The parties replied to those comments (Rule 44 § 5).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. The Chamber decided to join the proceedings in the applications (Rule 42 § 1). By a decision of 22 May 2007 the Court accepted that the applicant organisation had locus standi under Article 34 of the Convention and declared the applications partly admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">8. The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE FACTS</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church between 1949 and 1989</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">9. In 1949 the authorities in Bulgaria enacted legislation regulating the organisational structure and functioning of religious denominations (the Religious Denominations Act 1949).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">10. In accordance with the Act, each religious denomination had to apply for registration and approval of its statute by the Council of Ministers and to register its leadership with the Directorate of Religious Denominations (“the Directorate”) attached to the Council of Ministers. The local leaderships were registered by the municipal authorities.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">11. In reality, the leadership of religious denominations was pre-approved or even directly nominated by the Bulgarian Communist Party.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">12. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church was no exception. A document dating from 1949, submitted by the applicants, attests that in 1949 the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party discussed the need for “cleansing” in the leadership of the Church and took measures to promote persons loyal to the authorities to leading positions in the Church. In 1971, following the death of Patriarch Cyril, the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, in a decision dated 8 March 1971, nominated Metropolitan Maxim for Patriarch and instructed a Mr K., a government employee, to “undertake the necessary preparation so as to secure the election of Metropolitan Maxim as Patriarch”. Contrary to the Statute of the Church, which provided that each eparchy had to hold elections for seven electors to a special Church Convention empowered to elect a new Patriarch, Maxim was elected by the electors nominated in 1957, when Cyril had become Patriarch.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">13. It is unclear whether Patriarch Maxim’s leadership was validly registered by the Council of Ministers under the 1949 Act. At all events, in administrative practice and for all legal purposes, until 1990 his leadership was recognised as being lawfully registered.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Divisions and claims to leadership between 1989 and 2003</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">14. Soon after the beginning of the democratisation process in Bulgaria in late 1989, a number of Christian Orthodox believers sought to replace the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. They considered that Patriarch Maxim had been proclaimed Bulgarian Patriarch in violation of traditional canons and the statute of the Church and that he had been responsible for acts incompatible with the duties of the Patriarch.Patriarch Maxim also had supporters. This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Church.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">15. Each of the conflicting groups in the Church naturally associated with one of the main political forces at the time – those who sought changes with the newly created Union of Democratic Forces (anti-communist) and those who represented the status quo with the Bulgarian Socialist Party (the reformed Communist Party).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">16. At the end of 1991, following parliamentary elections, a new government was formed by the Union of Democratic Forces and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">17. On 25 May 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations attached to the Council of Ministers (“the Directorate”) issued a decision stating that the nomination of Maxim as Bulgarian Patriarch and head of the Church in 1971 had been in violation of its statute and ordered his replacement by an interim council pending the election of a new leadership by a Church Convention. Metropolitan Pimen was appointed chair of the interim council.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">18. The leadership presided over by Patriarch Maxim appealed to the Supreme Court. In judgments of 2 July 1992 and 5 November 1992 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Directorate had merely certified that another person represented the Church and that, for that reason, Patriarch Maxim’s rights had not been affected. Although it dismissed the appeal in its entirety, the Supreme Court stated that in so far as the Directorate had appointed an interim leadership, its decision was null and void as being ultra vires, since the Directorate lacked the power to make appointments in the Church.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">19. In the following years, the leadership dispute within the Church continued, each of the two leaderships having its supporters among the clergy and the believers. A number of churches and monasteries became known as “belonging” to the applicant organisation, popularly referred to as “the alternative Synod”, since the religious ministers in those places recognised the leadership of the applicant organisation.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">20. There were also a number of cases where the applicant organisation took possession of existing buildings by force and, in some instances, with the assistance of the prosecuting authorities and the police, on an unclear legal basis.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">21. The relations between State and religious denominations continued to be regulated by the 1949 Act, which</span> was interpreted in the administrative practice of the Directorate and the Council of Ministers as requiring each religious denomination to have a single leadership. Parallel organisations of the same religious denomination were not allowed. Thus, despite the divisions in the two main religious communities in the country, the Christian Orthodox and Muslim communities (within which separate leaderships exercised de facto control over local structures and places of worship), the law continued to treat each religious denomination as a unified legal person represented and governed by the leadership registered with the Council of Ministers under the 1949 Act.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">22. </span>At the end of 1994, parliamentary elections took place in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Socialist Party obtained a majority in Parliament and formed a new government, which took office in January 1995.<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> The position of the new government was that Patriarch Maxim was the sole legitimate leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. On 9 November 1995 the Deputy Prime Minister issued a decision (no. R-63), noting that “the majority of the Bulgarian Christian Orthodox clergy” supported Maxim as Patriarch, “in full conformity with the canon ...”, and that it was essential to put an end to the acts of those who “had profited from the 1992 [State] intervention”. The order further stated that it was not necessary to proceed with a fresh registration of the leadership presided over by Patriarch Maxim since the courts had decided that the 1992 decision purporting to remove him had not been valid.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">23. On 4 July 1996 a Church Convention, organised by several religious leaders of the “alternative Synod” (the applicant organisation) and attended by several hundred clergy members and believers, elected Metropolitan Pimen as Patriarch and head of the Church and Inokentiy as Metropolitan of Sofia.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">24. In 1996 Patriarch Pimen applied to the Directorate, seeking registration as the official leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Directorate did not reply. Patriarch Pimen appealed to the Supreme Court against the tacit refusal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">25. In a judgment of 13 December 1996 the Supreme Court, noting that the Church was a registered religious denomination and that the Directorate was under a duty to examine requests for changes in the leadership of religious denominations, found that the Directorate’s tacit refusal to examine the applicant organisation’s request was unlawful.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">26. On 13 December 1996, the day of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Directorate examined and granted a request submitted by Patriarch Maxim for the registration of amendments in the structure of the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">27. That decision was appealed against by the applicant organisation to the Supreme Administrative Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">28. In a judgment of 5 March 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court declared the Directorate’s decision of 13 December 1996 null and void. The court noted, inter alia, that it was unclear whether the Holy Synod presided over by Patriarch Maxim had been validly registered in accordance with the Religious Denominations Act of 1949. Furthermore, the Directorate’s decision of 13 December 1996 had been issued at a time when another request for registration of the Holy Synod’s leadership, the request by Patriarch Pimen, had been pending before the Directorate. In these circumstances, the Directorate was not entitled to proceed with the registration of the amendments requested by Patriarch Maxim without informing all interested parties, such as the applicant organisation, and without considering those parties’ arguments.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">29. As a result of the judgment of 5 March 1997, the 1996 registration of the Church as presided over by Patriarch Maxim (see paragraph 26 above) was null and void.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">30. In February 1997 the government of the Bulgarian Socialist Party stepped down and an interim cabinet was appointed. Following parliamentary elections, a new government of the Union of Democratic Forces was formed. A number of politicians from that political party, including the President of Bulgaria, elected at the end of 1996 by universal suffrage, supported the applicant organisation.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">31. In January 1997 the newly elected President of Bulgaria took oath in the presence of Patriarch Pimen, thus recognising the applicant organisation as the legitimate leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">32. In 1997 the mayor of Sofia granted the request for registration of the applicant organisation’s local leadership. In the ensuing judicial proceedings instituted by the other leadership, in a judgment of 18 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court noted the developments in the Church in the previous years and concluded that two religious organisations bearing the name Bulgarian Orthodox Church existed in Bulgaria. Therefore, the church presided over by Patriarch Maxim had no standing to appeal against decisions concerning the Church presided over by Patriarch Pimen. The Supreme Administrative Court thus dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">33. In 1998 and 1999 the State authorities urged the two opposing leaderships to unite and adopted the view that pending such unification none of them could claim to unite all clergy and believers and represent the Church. On several official festive occasions, breaking with tradition, the President of Bulgaria refused to invite any representative of the Church, as that would have required choosing between the two opposing groups.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">34. On 22 June 1998 the applicant organisation decided to convene in October or November 1998 a national congregation of clergy and believers with the ambition to unite the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">35. On 30 September and 1 October 1998 the Holy Synod presided over by Patriarch Maxim held a national convention with the same ambition. The convention, which was proclaimed as a Holy Expanded and Supra-jurisdictional Pan-Orthodox Council, was attended by patriarchs and other senior clergy from Orthodox Churches from Russia, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Albania, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. According to the minutes, submitted by the third party, a number of adherents of the applicant organisation, including Patriarch Pimen and Metropolitan Inokentiy, made statements of repentance and were accepted under the leadership of Maxim but were demoted to lower ranks in the clergy. The minutes contained language strongly condemning the applicant organisation for having caused a schism.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">36. The Church Convention of 30 September and 1 October 1998 did not bring about reconciliation. The applicant organisation continued its efforts to unite the believers under a new leadership and refused to accept the leadership of Patriarch Maxim. It appears that Patriarch Pimen and Metropolitan Inokentiy either did not make statements of repentance at the Church Convention or retracted them.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">37. On 9 and 10 November 1998 the applicant organisation held a national congregation organised by it. It was attended by approximately 1,100 participants, including more than 350 members of the clergy. The participants voted for the removal of Patriarch Maxim and adopted a new statute of the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">38. Patriarch Pimen passed away in April 1999. The applicant organisation appointed Metropolitan Inokentiy to act as Chair of the Holy Council and its representative, pending the nomination of a new Patriarch.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">39. On 28 June 2001 the applicant organisation asked the Directorate to register the new leadership. As no reply was received, the applicant organisation submitted an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 9 July 2002 the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issue had already been decided by the judgment of 13 December 1996 (see paragraph 25 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">40. The Directorate and the Council of Ministers never registered the applicant organisation.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">41. <span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">At all relevant times, Patriarch Maxim’s leadership enjoyed international support from Orthodox Churches and other religious organisations worldwide. It appears that the applicant organisation has never had significant international support from Orthodox Churches outside Bulgaria.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. The authorities’ measures to put an end to the divisions in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. The new legal regime</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">42. In June 2001, following parliamentary elections, the government of the Union of Democratic Forces was replaced by a government formed by the National Movement Simeon II.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">43. Representatives of the new ruling political party, including its leader, publicly expressed their opinion that Patriarch Maxim was the legitimate leader of the Church and stated their intention to introduce legislation with the aim of putting an end to the divisions in the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">44. That was done with effect from 1 January 2003, when the new Religious Denominations Act 2002 came into force.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">45. The official record of the parliamentary debates during the passage of the Act reveal an almost unanimous opinion that the unity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was of crucial national importance because of its historical role in shaping and preserving the Bulgarian national identity over the centuries.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">46. The records also reveal that a number of deputies from the political groups which introduced the bill and voted for it were of the view that the correct reading of the Church canons demonstrated that Patriarch Maxim was the canonical head of the Church and that for that reason it was justified to adopt provisions enshrining in law the legitimacy of the canonical leadership of the Church and excluding the other leadership. Some deputies emphasised, in addition, the need to remedy the 1992 unlawful State interference in the organisation of the Church. The opposition deputies considered that the bill was unconstitutional as it interfered in the internal affairs of the religious community. Some of them also relied on the fact that Patriarch Maxim had been nominated by the Communist Party and had ruled the Church according to its policy and contrary to canon.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">47. The new Act provided, inter alia, for the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. It also introduced a provision which stated that the Church “is headed by the Holy Synod and is represented by the Bulgarian Patriarch ...” The Act prohibited more than one denomination carrying the same name and stated, in its transitional provisions, that persons who had seceded from a registered religious institution were not entitled to use its name or assets (see for more details paragraphs 70-74 below).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">48. It is unclear whether the representation of the Church has been recorded (вписанo) in the public register at the Sofia City Court. The Government’s position, supported by a statement issued by the Register Department of the Sofia City Court on 24 July 2007, appears to be that no such recording was necessary and that it has not been done. No reference was made in this statement to section 18 of the 2002 Act and the fact that the Supreme Court of Cassation had stated that the recording requirement contained in that provision applied to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see paragraph 74 below). Contradictory information as regards the recording of the Church is contained in a publication submitted by the applicants<sup>1</sup>. According to one statement contained in that publication, such recording has been made, apparently indicating Patriarch Maxim as the Church’s representative, on the basis of an “expert opinion by the Directorate of Religious Denominations attached to the Council of Ministers”. According to a report by the President of the Register Department of the Sofia City Court contained in the same publication, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church has not been entered in the register.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. The applicant organisation’s attempts to obtain recognition under the new legal regime</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">49. On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant organisation applied to the Sofia City Court for the registration of its local organisation in Sofia. The request was made by Metropolitan Inokentiy, who stated that he headed and represented the Holy Synod and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">50. On 23 September 2003 the Sofia City Court rejected the request. The court noted that registration could only be granted if requested by the person representing the Church. In accordance with section 10 of the 2002 Act, the Church was presided over by its Patriarch. The court further stated that the fact that the Bulgarian Patriarch was Maxim was “publicly known and internationally recognised”. The opinion of five judges of the Constitutional Court in a judgment of 15 July 2003 allegedly supported that view (see paragraphs 75-79 below). On that basis the court declared the request inadmissible as it had not been submitted by Patriarch Maxim.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">51. On appeal, the Sofia City Court’s judgment was upheld by the Sofia Court of Appeal on 4 November 2003. In these proceedings, the Sofia City Court sought the opinion of the Directorate of Religious Denominations attached to the Council of Ministers on the situation in the Church but noted in its judgment that it was not bound to follow the opinion of the executive branch. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant organisation had not submitted a copy of the statute of the Church and had not proved that Metropolitan Inokentiy represented it. In particular, the judgments of the Supreme Court of 1992 (see paragraph 18 above), relied upon by the applicant organisation, did not prove the relevant facts.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">52. The final decision was that of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 8 January 2004. The Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ reasoning and stated that the request was inadmissible in the absence of proof about the leadership of the Church and its representatives.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">53. The attempts of the applicant organisation to achieve recognition of its local church councils under the new Act were refused in most cases for the same reason. In its judgment of 20 October 2003 judgment (in case no. 258/2003) refusing such a request, the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal stated that Metropolitan Inokentiy had not submitted proof about the identity of the head of the Church, as recorded at the Sofia City Court under section 18 of the Act, and could not, therefore, act on behalf of the Church. Also, “it was publicly known that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had a Patriarch” and the court could not deal with the question whether the Patriarch’s nomination in 1971 had been lawful.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">54. In at least two regional courts, however, the applicant organisation obtained decisions registering its local church councils – in the Dobrich Regional Court by two decisions of 22 May 2003 and in the Blagoevgrad Regional Court by several decisions of 30 September 2003. The courts apparently accepted that the applicant organisation represented the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. Dismissal of religious ministers associated with the applicant organisation and their eviction from places of worship and other buildings</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">55. During the relevant period some religious ministers who associated with the applicant organisation decided to return under the leadership of Patriarch Maxim. In respect of those who did not do so, in 2003 and on subsequent occasions the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church presided over by Patriarch Maxim issued decisions terminating their functions as religious ministers. Some of the ousted ministers unsuccessfully challenged their dismissal before the civil courts.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">56. On an unspecified date the Church, as represented by Patriarch Maxim, invited the applicant organisation to vacate all churches and religious buildings it controlled. On 2 July 2004 a complaint to the prosecution authorities was filed, in which Patriarch Maxim requested them to carry out an inquiry and, where appropriate, institute criminal proceedings against Metropolitan Inokentiy and his supporters. He also requested, accordingly, the search and seizure of seals and other belongings, as well as the institution of civil proceedings on behalf of the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">57. On an unspecified date in July 2004 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office instructed local prosecutors to assist the Church in recovering its property. On 19 and 20 July 2004 local prosecutors throughout the country issued orders for the eviction of persons “unlawfully occupying” churches and religious institutions.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">58. The text of all those decisions was almost identical as, apparently, it had been copied from the instructions given by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutors noted that the Religious Denominations Act 2002 did not allow the existence of more than one religious denomination bearing the same name and prohibited the use of the name and property of a religious denomination by persons who had seceded from it. The prosecutors further observed that the courts had rejected the applicant organisation’s request for registration in Sofia and that its representatives in local parishes had been invited to leave voluntarily the premises they occupied. The prosecutors concluded that the persons associated with the applicant organisation unlawfully prevented the legitimate religious ministers appointed by the Church from performing their duties. For these reasons police evictions were ordered.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">59. On 21 July 2004 early in the morning the police blocked more than fifty churches and monasteries in the country, evicted the religious ministers and staff who identified themselves with the applicant organisation and transferred the possession of the buildings to representatives of the other leadership. The applicant organisation submits that among those buildings there were several new churches, built entirely under its leadership.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">60. Some of the ousted religious ministers sought the assistance of the prosecuting authorities against the forceful evictions. Their requests were refused in decisions stating that the persons who had entered into possession of the disputed buildings were legitimate representatives of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, to which the buildings belonged.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">61. The six individual applicants were evicted on 21 July 2004 from the church of St Paraskeva in Sofia.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">4. Other developments</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">62. In 2005 criminal proceedings were opened against Metropolitan Inokentiy and Metropolitan Gavrail, who belonged to the applicant organisation, for usurping the functions of religious ministers, contrary to Article 274 of the Criminal Code.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">63. On 24 November 2006 the Sofia District Court acquitted Metropolitan Inokentiy. The prosecutor appealed. In a final judgment of 11 July 2007 the Sofia City Court upheld the acquittal. Metropolitan Gavrail was also acquitted, by a judgment of 20 February 2007 of the Blagoevgrad Regional Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">64. The reasoning of the courts in the above two cases was essentially identical. They noted that since 1992 the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had been divided and that after 1996 neither Patriarch Maxim nor Patriarch Pimen or his successor had been lawfully registered as the head of the Church. Furthermore, Metropolitan Inokentiy and Metropolitan Gavrail had been registered, prior to the entry into force of the Religious Denominations Act 2002, as leaders of the respective local divisions of the Church, the Sofia Eparchy and the Nevrokop Eparchy. In these circumstances the accused persons had been entitled to act as religious ministers and had done so in the belief that they were lawfully exercising their function. It followed that they had not committed the offence under Article 274 of the Criminal Code.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The Constitution</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">65. The relevant constitutional provisions read as follows.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 13</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“(1) Religions shall be free.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">(2) Religious institutions shall be separate from the State...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">(4) Religious institutions and communities and religious beliefs shall not be used for political ends.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 37</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“(1) The freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and the choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The State shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations, and between believers and non-believers.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">(2) The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">66. In a </span>judgment of 11 June 1992<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span>the Constitutional Court, interpreting the 1991 Constitution, stated, inter alia, that the State should not interfere with the internal organisation of religious communities and institutions except in accordance with Article 13 § 4 and Article 37 § 2 of the Constitution.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Religious Denominations Act 1949</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">67. The Act governed the organisational structure and functioning of religious denominations between 1949 and 1 January 2003. It provided that each religious denomination had to apply for registration and approval of its statute by the Council of Ministers and to register its leadership with the Directorate. The local leaderships were registered by the municipal authorities.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">68. The 1949 Act was interpreted in administrative practice as prohibiting parallel organisations of the same religious denomination and requiring that each religious denomination must have a single leadership.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">69. During the relevant period, the judicial practice in appeals against the Council of Ministers’ decisions on the registration of religious denominations and their leaderships was contradictory. In some cases the courts took the view that the Council of Ministers and the Directorate enjoyed unfettered discretion in such registrations. In other cases the courts reviewed the change-of-leadership decisions for compliance with the statute of the religious denomination, as registered by the Directorate. In one case the Supreme Court of Cassation recognised the existence of two parallel organisations of one and the same religious denomination (see the following judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court: judgment no. 4816 of 21 September 1999 in case no. 2697/99, judgment no. 2919 of 28 April 2001 in case no. 8194/99 and judgment no. 9184 of 16 October 2003 in case no. 6747/02).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. The Religious Denominations Act 2002</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">70. The Act provides for judicial registration of all religious denominations except the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which is recognised as a legal person ex lege. In accordance with paragraph 2 of the transitional provisions, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church need not be re-registered under the new Act, unlike all other religious denominations.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">71. Section 10 of the new Act provides, inter alia, that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is a legal person whose structure is determined by its internal statute. In accordance with the same provision, the Church “is headed by the Holy Synod and is represented by the Bulgarian Patriarch ...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">72. Section 15(2) provides that there can be no more than one religious denomination with the same name. Under section 36, persons acting on behalf of a religious denomination without authorisation are to be fined by the Directorate of Religious Denominations.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">73. Paragraph 3 of the transitional provisions of the Act provides that persons who had seceded from a registered religious institution before the Act’s entry into force in breach of the institution’s internal rules are not entitled to use the name of the religious institution or its assets.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">74. Section 18 provides that information about religious denominations, including the names of the persons representing them for all legal purposes, is recorded (вписване) in a public register at the Sofia City Court. The Supreme Court of Cassation has stated that this requirement applies to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (judgment no. 120 of 11 March 2005 in case no. 496/2004; see also the same interpretation in other judgments: the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal, judgment of 20 October 2003 in case no. 258/2003, and the Sliven Regional Court, judgment no. 245 of 30 June 2004 in case no. 94/2004) (see also paragraph 48 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">D. The Constitutional Court’s judgment of 15 July 2003</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">75. In February 2003 fifty members of Parliament asked the Constitutional Court to repeal certain provisions of the new Religious Denominations Act 2002 as being unconstitutional and contrary to the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">76. Paragraph 3 of the transitional provisions of the new Act was among the provisions challenged. Some of the other provisions that are relevant to the applicants’ complaints, such as sections 15(2) and 36 of the new Act, were not challenged.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">77. The Constitutional Court gave judgment on 15 July 2003. It could not reach a majority verdict, an equal number of justices having voted in favour of and against the request to declare paragraph 3 of the transitional provisions unconstitutional. According to the Constitutional Court’s practice, in such circumstances the request for a legal provision to be struck down is considered to be dismissed by default.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">78. The justices who voted against the request considered, inter alia, that the principle of legal certainty required that persons who had seceded from a religious denomination should not be allowed to use its name. Further, it was obvious that they could not claim part of its assets, as the assets belonged to the religious denomination as a legal person.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">79. The justices who considered that the provision was unconstitutional stated that it purported to regulate issues that concerned the internal organisation of religious communities and thus violated their autonomy. Those justices further stated that the provision, applied in the context of existing disputes, favoured one of the groups in a divided religious community and therefore did not contribute to maintaining tolerance but rather frustrated that aim. It thus violated Article 9 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">E. Article 274 of the Criminal Code</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">80. This provision makes it punishable to usurp the functions of a public figure or to wear attire or symbols to which one is not entitled. The punishment is imprisonment of up to one year or community labour (пробация).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">81. In Resolution 1390 (2004), adopted on 7 September 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe criticised the new Religious Denominations Act 2002 and stated, among other things:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“The strongest doubts concern the state interference allowed for, or even operated directly by the [Religious Denominations Act 2002], in the internal affairs of religious communities. This concerns in particular the leadership quarrel between the two Bulgarian Orthodox synods led, respectively, by Patriarch Maxim and by Metropolitan Inokentiy, who disputes the legitimacy of Maxim as Patriarch. The ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, as defined meticulously in [section 10(1)], exempting this institution from the usual registration procedure, which also includes a check on the legitimacy of the leadership, is generally seen as intended to settle the dispute between Maxim and Inokentiy in favour of the former. The alternative synod is effectively barred from registering as a new religious institution by the prohibition against the registration of another institution using the same name and headquarters and the punitive provisions empowering the Directorate of Religious Affairs to sanction ‘unauthorised representatives’...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">The Assembly therefore recommends to the Bulgarian authorities: ... as regards [section 10(2) of the Act] (ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church): either to delete this provision outright, thereby subjecting the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to the same registration requirements as other religious communities; or to ensure in other ways without interference by the executive that the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is legitimate according to Orthodox canonical law; ... as regards [section 15(2)] (no registration of an identical religious community): either to delete this provision, or to ensure its interpretation in such a way that only the strict and literal identity of names and headquarters precludes the registration of a breakaway group; ...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. SCOPE OF THE CASE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">82. The Court notes that in their submissions the parties relied, among other things, on arguments concerning the eviction in July 2004 of hundreds of clergy members and believers associated with the applicant organisation from a number of churches, monasteries and other buildings. Some of those facts are the subject matter of other applications submitted to the Court by individuals alleging violations of their Convention rights as a result of the same events as those at issue in the present case.<sup>2</sup></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">83. The Court will examine all relevant information submitted by the parties but the scope of the present case is limited to the complaints submitted by the applicant organisation, the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church presided over by Metropolitan Inokentiy, and the six individual applicants listed in paragraph 3 above.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">84. The applicants complained that in 2003 and the following years the State had interfered in an arbitrary fashion in the internal dispute in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church with the aim of forcing all clergy and believers under the leadership of the person favoured by the authorities, Patriarch Maxim. They relied on Article 9 of the Convention, which reads as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties’ general submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. The applicants</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">85. The applicants stated that the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in itself constituted an arbitrary interference with their rights under Article 9 of the Convention. They characterised as misleading and inappropriate the Government’s argument that the new legal regime resembled the rules governing the status of the predominant religions in other European countries, such as Denmark and Italy. The crucial difference in the present case was, in the applicants’ view, that the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had been introduced in the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in the context of an ongoing dispute between two leaderships and had, moreover, been aimed at putting an end to this dispute by favouring one of the two leaderships to the exclusion of the other. The applicants referred to the Court’s case-law, according to which the use of legislation and decrees to place a religious community under a single leadership and the removal of the opposing group from places of worship or other property constituted arbitrary State interference with the internal organisation of the religious community. The applicants considered that the heavy-handedness and discriminatory intent of the Bulgarian Government in the present case not only mirrored their approach criticised by the Court in Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI), but far surpassed it in gravity.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">86. The applicants stressed that the Government’s suggestion that they should register as a new religious denomination was no answer to their grievances. The present case did not concern a refusal to register a new religious group but a State interference in an internal dispute within an existing religious denomination. The Government had misleadingly tried to represent the applicant organisation as usurpers of Church property, but omitted important facts such as the fact that the leaders and religious ministers of the applicant organisation had always been part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and of its leadership, some of them for decades. Furthermore, many believers did recognise the applicant organisation as the legitimate leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Instead of helping the two wings in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to coexist peacefully, the authorities had decided to remove one of them and give its full support to the other.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">87. The applicants also submitted that a number of provisions of the Religious Denominations Act 2002 were vague and that the authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant organisation was arbitrary. The grave deficiencies of the Act had been noted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its Resolution 1390 (2004). In particular, since the Act provided that the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church did not need to register, it was unclear on what basis the authorities had determined in 2004 that Patriarch Maxim and not Metropolitan Inokentiy represented the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">88. The applicants further stated that the authorities aimed to destroy the applicant organisation by, among other means, depriving it of any property.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. The Government</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">89. The Government submitted that there had been no State interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 9, interpreted alone and in the light of Article 11 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">90. In particular, the Religious Denominations Act 2002, which provided that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, unlike all other religious denominations, did not need to register with the Directorate and thus was subject to a special legal regime, was based on the existing similar legal solutions in a number of European countries, such as, for example, Denmark and Italy.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">91. The 2002 Act did not in any way inhibit the free formation and activities of religious communities. The applicants were free to found a religious organisation and obtain legal personality by registering with the Directorate or, if they so wished, to function as an unregistered group. The applicants had never sought registration under the 2002 Act.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">92. It was clear – in the Government’s view – that what the applicants were seeking was not the free exercise of their religion but administrative control over an existing religious denomination and its property. However, in the Government’s view, the question of who was the leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was not a human rights issue; it was an issue of religious canon and thus fell outside the Court’s control.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">93. In so far as the applicants drew parallels with the case of Hasan and Chaush (cited above), the case at hand was different in that the canons of the Orthodox Church provided that the Patriarch was elected for life. The traditional canons did not allow challenges to his legitimacy. Patriarch Maxim was therefore the legitimate and internationally recognised Bulgarian Patriarch and would continue to hold this title until the end of his life. By recognising that fact the State had not interfered with the internal affairs of the religious community. To accept the contrary would be tantamount to considering that by recognising the Pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church, the member States of the Council of Europe interfered with the rights of believers who did not recognise his leadership.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">94. As regards the events of July 2004, the Government stated that the prosecuting authorities and the police had assisted the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in recovering its property, which had been unlawfully occupied by persons associated with the applicant organisation. In 1992 and the following years the applicant organisation had gained control over Church buildings through arbitrary and unlawful acts and it was necessary to restore legality. In accordance with the Religious Denominations Act 2002, the head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was its Patriarch. For the prosecuting authorities it had been clear that Maxim was the Patriarch. The Church had sought the help of the public authorities to enable its ministers to take effective control of the Church’s property. Had the authorities refused assistance, they would have become liable for a failure to abide by their positive obligations under Article 9 of the Convention to secure the peaceful enjoyment of religious freedoms by the followers of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The applicants were free to practise their religion, in private or in public, by opening their own places of worship but could not lay claim to the property of the Church. Indeed, the events of July 2004 illustrated the fact that the applicants’ struggle was not about freedom of religion – which they enjoyed – but about control over property.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">95. Finally, in the Government’s view, Article 9 did not enshrine a duty for the State to secure a right of dissent within a religious organisation. The State authorities’ duties under the Convention in respect of a member of a religious denomination who did not accept the religious leadership was limited to securing him or her a right to leave the organisation.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. The third party</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">96. The third party made submissions on the history of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the leadership dispute since 1989. They stated, among other things, that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was an ecumenical church administered by the Holy Synod. In accordance with its statute, working against the unity of the Church was an offence punishable by excommunication and anathema.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">97. Patriarch Maxim had been validly elected in 1971 and had been recognised worldwide as the head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, including by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and all Orthodox Churches. Moreover, all Orthodox Churches had condemned the efforts of the applicants to divide the orthodox believers in Bulgaria and had expressed their support for the Bulgarian Orthodox Church presided over by Patriarch Maxim.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">98. The third party further submitted that the applicant organisation had been the product of direct State interference in the internal affairs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, between 1992 and 2002. As had been noted by human rights groups, in 1992 “the new Government [had] sought to remove ... a number of clergy in different religions, including the head of the Orthodox Church ... [on] suspicion that these clergy [had not followed] the Government policy, or [because] they [had] occupied official positions that government supporters [had] had aspirations to obtain” (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, annual report 1991/92). Following the Government’s decision of 1992, offices and churches had been occupied illegally by the “alternative Synod” (the applicant organisation). Also, the Chief Public Prosecutor until 1999 and the mayor of Sofia until 2002 had actively encouraged and assisted the applicant organisation. However, the courts had resisted the efforts of the applicants to obtain full control over the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">99. In the submission of the third party, against this background, the events of 2003 and 2004 had been nothing more than restoration of law and justice. The Church had had no choice but to seek the assistance of the prosecuting authorities in recovering its property that was unlawfully occupied by others.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court’s assessment</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Whether the events complained of fall to be examined under Article 9</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">100. The Government and the third party expressed doubts as to whether the case was about freedom of religion. They alleged that the applicants’ concern was not the practice of religion but their ambition to control property and gain power to administer the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Government also stated that it was not the Court’s role to decide who the legitimate leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was and expressed the view that for that reason the case did not concern human rights.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">101. The applicants reiterated that they were complaining about arbitrary State interference in the Church’s internal leadership dispute.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">102. The Court observes that the events complained of concern State action which, in the context of an ongoing dispute between two groups claiming leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, had the effect of terminating the autonomous existence of one of the two opposing groups and providing the other group with exclusive representative power and control over the affairs of the whole religious community (see paragraphs 42-46 and 70-74 above). These events, which included police eviction of hundreds of clergy and believers from their temples, affected adversely not only the religious leaders but also the Christian Orthodox believers and their community as a whole (see paragraphs 56-61 above). The Court considers that in principle such events fall to be examined under Article 9 of the Convention, the provision protecting freedom of religion.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">103. It is true that the conflict in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was not about divergent religious beliefs and practices but mainly about the choice of leadership (see paragraphs 14-41 above). As the Court has noted in previous cases, however, the personality of the religious leaders is of importance to the members of the religious community. Participation in the organisational life of the community is a manifestation of one’s religion, protected by Article 9 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court has held that under Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11, the right of believers to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function free from arbitrary State intervention in its organisation. The autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 of the Convention affords. Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article 9 of the Convention, all other aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable (see Hasan and Chaush (cited above), § 62, and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 118, ECHR 2001-XII).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">104. The Court finds, therefore, that the State actions complained of – which concerned the leadership and organisation of the Christian Orthodox community in Bulgaria – must be examined under Article 9. The Court’s task is to examine whether the enactment of the 2002 Act and its implementation constituted, as alleged by the applicants, an unlawful and unjustified State interference with the internal organisation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the applicants’ rights under Article 9 of the Convention. It is certainly not the Court’s task to determine the canonical legitimacy of Church leaders.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Whether there has been State interference</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">105. Despite the nature and effects of the State action complained of (see paragraph 102 above), the Government averred that there had not been State interference. They relied on two main points, which the Court will address below.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(a) Whether the State did nothing more than recognising the leadership that was legitimate under canon law</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">106. The Government stated that the enactment of the 2002 Act and its implementation amounted to nothing more than recognition of the leadership of the Church, as determined by its own canons. Those canons enshrined the unity of the Church and prohibited alternative leaderships and divisions in organisational or property matters. In the Government’s view the recognition of the canonical leadership of the Church by the State was an act of respect for its autonomy and canons, not interference with them. The third party was of the same opinion. The applicants disagreed (see paragraphs 86-99 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">107. In the Court’s view, the Government’s argument fails to take into account the fact that the impugned State actions were undertaken in conditions involving genuinely deep division and incompatible claims to legitimacy by two opposing groups of leaders of the Christian Orthodox community in Bulgaria, each supported by decisions of separate Church conventions. Moreover, the State actions complained of were not limited simply to recognition. They included legislation passed with the aim of restoring the unity of the Church and sweeping measures throughout the country enforced by the prosecuting authorities against a large group of clergy members who were seen as their religious leaders by part of the clergy and believers belonging to the Christian Orthodox community in Bulgaria (see paragraphs 42-64 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">108. The present case is thus different from the case of Kohn v. Germany ((dec.), no. 47021/99, 23 March 2000), in which the domestic civil courts merely took note of a decision of the religious community’s competent adjudication body, which had dealt with an internal dispute about one of its local representatives.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">109. In the case at hand the Church conventions which supported the two rival leaderships were each attended by hundreds of representatives of local parishes and other clergy and believers (see paragraphs 23, 35 and 37 above). At the relevant time, therefore, the question of which leadership was canonical was in dispute within the religious community itself and there was no authoritative decision by the community settling this dispute. Despite these realities, the 2002 Act declared the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as a single legal person led by a single leadership and forced the religious community under one of the two existing leaderships (see paragraphs 42-48 and 70-74 above). The authorities thus took sides in an unsettled controversy deeply dividing the religious community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">110. The above is sufficient, in the Court’s view, for it to conclude that, contrary to the Government’s submission, the authorities’ involvement was not limited to mere recognition of the existence of the Church’s leadership. The respondent Government’s remaining arguments in support of their view that Patriarch Maxim was the canonical leader of the Church concern the justification for and proportionality of this intervention and will be examined by the Court under that head.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(b) Significance of the fact that the applicants are free to practise their religion and found a new church</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">111. The Court observes that the applicant organisation and the individual applicants are not prevented from founding and registering a new religious organisation and engaging in worship, teaching or other religious activities. It would be sufficient for the applicants to agree to register and act under a different name from that of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Although such registration would not help them recover the buildings they were evicted from, it would allow them to build new churches.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">112. As the applicants rightly pointed out, however, the present case is not about a refusal to register a new religious group bearing a name identical to an existing one but about State action to “resolve” a leadership dispute in a divided religious community by assisting one of the opposing groups to gain full control, to the exclusion of the rival group. It is obvious that but for the State actions complained of, the applicants would have continued to administer autonomously the affairs of the part of the Christian Orthodox community in Bulgaria which recognised the applicant organisation as its leadership.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">113. Therefore, the possibility for the applicants to found a new religious organisation, while it may be relevant in the assessment of proportionality, cannot lead to the conclusion that there was no State interference with the internal organisation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(c) Conclusion as regards the existence of State interference</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">114. The Court concludes that the actions complained of constituted State interference with the internal organisation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and, therefore, with the rights of the applicant organisation and the individual applicants under Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">115. Such an interference entails a violation of the Convention unless it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of a legitimate aim (see Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, §§ 75 and 84, ECHR 2000-VII).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. Lawfulness</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">116. The interference with the applicants’ rights was based on a legislative act – the 2002 Act – and effected through judicial decisions and prosecutors’ orders (see paragraphs 42-64 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">117. The Court considers that the question whether this legal basis met the Convention requirements of lawfulness, in the sense of compliance with the principles of rule of law and freedom from arbitrariness, must be examined in the context of the main issue in the present case – whether or not the impugned interference pursued a legitimate aim and could be considered necessary in a democratic society for the achievement of such aim. This approach is not unusual, in particular, in cases concerning complex situations arising in the unique conditions of transition from a totalitarian State to democracy and the rule of law (see a similar approach in Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 90, 16 December 2004, and Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine, no. 77703/01, § 131, 14 June 2007).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">4. Legitimate aim, proportionality and necessity in a democratic society</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(a) General principles</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">118. The Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that, as enshrined in Article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention. It is of central importance to believers, but also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society depends on it (see Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 71, 5 April 2007).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">119. States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the particularly delicate area of their relations with religious communities (see Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek, cited above, § 84). While it may be necessary for the State to take action to reconcile the interests of the various religions and religious groups that coexist in a democratic society, the State has a duty to remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory power and in its relations with the various religions, denominations and groups within them. What is at stake here is the preservation of pluralism and the proper functioning of democracy (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p.18, § 33; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others, cited above, § 123; and Hasan and Chaush, cited above, § 78).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">120. The State’s duty of neutrality and impartiality, as defined in the Court’s case-law, is incompatible with any power on the State’s part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs. Furthermore, in democratic societies the State does not need to take measures to ensure that religious communities remain or are brought under a unified leadership. The role of the authorities in a situation of conflict between or within religious groups is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other. State measures favouring a particular leader of a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community, or part of it, to place itself under a single leadership against its will would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion (see Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, §§ 49, 52 and 53, ECHR 1999-IX; Hasan and Chaush, cited above, §§ 62 and 78; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others, cited above, §§ 118 and 123; and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community, cited above, § 96).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">121. As has been stated many times in the Court’s judgments, not only is political democracy a fundamental feature of the European public order but the Convention was designed to promote and maintain the ideals and values of a democratic society. By virtue of the wording of the second paragraphs of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with any of the rights enshrined in those Articles is one that may claim to spring from “democratic society” (see Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, §§ 86-89, ECHR 2003-II).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(b) Application of those principles in the present case</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">122. The Court accepts that one of the aims of the 2002 Act, taken as a whole, was to improve the legal regulation of religious denominations. Such improvement had long been overdue (see Hasan and Chaush, cited above, § 86) and its realisation was undoubtedly in the public interest.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">123. The more specific question whether the same could be said about those provisions of the Act which resulted in the impugned interference in the organisation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is inseparable from the issue of necessity and proportionality in a democratic society and the Court will examine those points together.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">124. The Court observes that the Government advanced several arguments in support of their position that the interference with the applicant’ rights pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. The Court will analyse these arguments below.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(i) Necessity to restore legality</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">125. The Court has examined carefully the voluminous material submitted by the parties, including detailed and documented information about the history of the division in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. It has also had regard to facts about the divisions in the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian authorities’ interference in the organisation of that community in the 1990s, in so far as they are relevant to the present case (see the above-cited cases of Hasan and Chaush and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">126. On this basis, the Court notes that the history of State intervention in the management and organisation of religious communities in Bulgaria dates back decades. Religious freedoms were reduced to a minimum during the communist period and the leaderships of religious communities, including the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, were nominated and controlled by the Communist Party and the State authorities (see paragraphs 9-13 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">127. The democratic changes after 1989 led to significant reforms which secured the enjoyment of many aspects of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Court finds it established, however, that even after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Bulgaria in 1992 a practice of State interference in the internal organisation of the country’s two main religious communities, the Christian Orthodox and the Muslim communities, continued, albeit in a different form. Such interference materialised, in particular, following changes of government. Where new parliamentary majorities were formed after elections, the new governments often took action to ensure that the largest religious communities in the country were placed under the control of religious leaders loyal to them. Furthermore, the courts’ practice on the application of the 1949 Act was contradictory (see paragraphs 14-48 and 69 above and the above-cited cases of Hasan and Chaush and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community). The above background is relevant to the assessment of the events in the present case.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">128. The Court notes that in 1992 the State authorities “ordered” the removal of Patriarch Maxim and attempted to provide legitimacy in law to an alternative leadership of the Church by leaders loyal to the government then in place. Although the Court is not called upon in the present case to determine whether these events violated Convention rights, it observes that they constituted State intervention to replace leaders of a religious community and were unlawful under domestic law as being contrary to Articles 13 and 37 of the Bulgarian Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. Indeed, that was the opinion of the Bulgarian Supreme Court (see paragraphs 16-18 and 65 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">129. It is also true that some of the temples and other Church property which were under the control of the applicant organisation until their eviction had been acquired with the assistance of the police and prosecutors on an unclear legal basis. Furthermore, the applicants were unable to disprove the Government’s and the third party’s assertion that in some instances adherents to the applicant organisation had gained possession of buildings through unlawful and arbitrary acts, including by force (see paragraphs 20, 94 and 98 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">130. Another relevant consideration was the fact that the ongoing dispute in the Church was a source of friction between the opposing groups and generated legal uncertainty. In particular, each of the rival leaderships endeavoured to obtain control over places of worship and Church assets and it was often difficult to ascertain the representatives of parishes. A number of judicial decisions concerning the Church’s leaderships and their representative powers had been issued over the years, some of them contradictory. All this engendered difficulties not only within the religious community but also for persons and institutions entering into relations with the Church (see paragraphs 14-41 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">131. Having regard to the above, and taking into consideration the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in the area of their relations with religious communities, the Court accepts that in 2002 the Bulgarian authorities had legitimate reasons to consider some form of action with the aim of helping to overcome the conflict in the Church, if possible, or limiting its negative effect on public order and legal certainty.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">132. The issue before the Court is, however, whether the concrete measures chosen by the authorities could be accepted as lawful and necessary in a democratic society and, in particular, whether those measures were proportionate and struck a fair balance between the declared aim of securing legality and the rights of the individuals and organisations concerned.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">133. The Government’s main argument on this point was that the applicants were in reality persons who had tried to usurp power in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and that, therefore, the measures against them, including their eviction from Church property, had been necessary in order to restore legality. The third party agreed (see paragraphs 86-100 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">134. The Court cannot accept the view that the applicants were nothing more than persons occupying churches unlawfully. The facts demonstrate convincingly that after 1989 genuine dissent and divisions emerged in the Church, which resulted in part of the Church’s clergy and believers no longer being willing to accept Maxim as Patriarch, in particular because of his appointment by the Communist Party in 1971 and his role during the communist period. There is no doubt that many believers came to adopt the view that a person appointed by the Communist Party could not claim legitimacy as the canonical Patriarch. This led to believers, church councils and senior clergy members throughout the country accepting the applicant organisation as the legitimate leadership of the Church. As a result, a number of church councils and clergy members in charge of temples and other Church property became associated with the applicant organisation and the latter thus obtained control over certain Church assets without any arbitrary or unlawful State involvement. The applicant organisation’s leaders, in particular Pimen, who was proclaimed Patriarch, were nominated by Church conventions attended by a significant number of clergy and believers (see paragraphs 14-39 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">135. It is true that the leaders of the applicant organisation had never been validly registered, under the legal regime before 1 January 2003, as the officially recognised national leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. It is unclear, however, whether Patriarch Maxim himself had ever been validly registered (see paragraphs 13, 22, 26-29 and 40 above). In any event, the parties did not dispute that at the relevant time the system of registrations at the Directorate of Religious Denominations had been highly influenced by political considerations, and the Court has so held in previous cases against Bulgaria (see the above-cited cases of Hasan and Chaush and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">136. While it is very likely that but for the unlawful State acts of 1992 the applicants would have probably gained less influence and would have obtained control over fewer temples, it is nonetheless established that the division in the Church was genuine and had deep roots (see paragraphs 12 and 14-37 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">137. It is not the Court’s task, and indeed it is not the task of any authority outside the Bulgarian Christian Orthodox community and its institutions, to assess the validity under canon law of the opposing claims to legitimacy made by the rival leaderships. In the examination of the events under the Convention, however, the relevant fact is that by 2002, when the State authorities undertook the impugned action to “unite” the Church, it had been de facto and genuinely divided for more than ten years and had two rival leaderships, each of them considering, on the basis of arguments which were not frivolous or untenable, that the other leadership was not canonical.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">138. In such conditions, the legitimate aim of remedying the injustices inflicted by the unlawful acts of 1992 and the following years, could not warrant the use of State power, in 2003, 2004 and afterwards, to take sweeping measures, imposing a return to the status quo ante against the will of a part of the religious community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">139. In the Court’s opinion, in the circumstances that obtained in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 2002 and the following years, Article 9 of the Convention imposed on the State authorities a duty of neutrality. The need to restore legality, relied upon by the Government, could only justify neutral measures ensuring legal certainty and foreseeable procedures for the settling of disputes. In the present case, however, the State authorities went far beyond the restoration of justice and undertook actions directly forcing the community under one of the two rival leaderships and suppressing the other (see paragraphs 42-64 above). Such measures must be regarded as disproportionate.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">140. The Court observes, in addition, that the police eviction of hundreds of clergy and believers from their temples, ordered by prosecutors in July 2004, constituted an intervention by the prosecutors and the police in a private law dispute which should have been examined by the courts, not by prosecutors (see paragraphs 56-61 above). The Court recalls in this respect that it has criticised the Bulgarian prosecutors for unlawful intervention in private matters (see Zlínsat, spol. s r.o., v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, §§ 97-101, 15 June 2006). The Government failed to convince the Court that the evictions in the present case had sound legal basis. They were, furthermore, in contradiction with the Bulgarian Constitution which clearly and unconditionally enshrines the separation of State and religion and, as emphasised by the Constitutional Court in 1992, prohibits State intervention in the organisation of religious communities (see paragraphs 65 and 66 above). However, if the authorities’ aimed at restoring legality, that could only be achieved by lawful means.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">141. The Government pointed out that the Convention does not enshrine a right of dissent within a religious community, it being sufficient that dissenters should be free to leave the community. In the Court’s view, while that is undoubtedly so (see Bror Spetz and Others v. Sweden, no. 12356/86, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports 57), the Government’s argument is flawed as it confuses alleged positive State duties to protect dissenters against acts and decisions of the religious community with State action favouring one of the two opposing groups in a divided religious community. While it is true that the secession of a dissenting group from the religious community may prompt civil-law consequences decided by the authorities (see Griechische Kirchengemeinde München und Bayern E.V. v. Germany (dec.), no. 52336/99, 18 September 2007), the fact that the Convention does not guarantee a right of dissent within a religious community does not mean that it gives unfettered discretion to the authorities to take sides in an intra-religious dispute and use State power to suppress one of the opposing groups in the dispute.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">142. In sum, the Court finds that the need to remedy the unlawful acts of 1992 and the following years cannot justify, in a democratic society, the sweeping use of State power and the unlawful acts that occurred in the present case, namely the suppression of the applicants’ activities as an alternative leadership within the Church and their expulsion from temples, monasteries and other Church premises.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(ii) Importance for the Bulgarian nation to restore the unity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">143. The Government’s and the third party’s submissions were apparently based on the view that the unity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was an important national goal of historical significance, with ramifications affecting the very fabric of the Bulgarian nation and its cultural identity. The Government believed that these considerations justified the impugned interference with the applicants’ rights.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">144. The applicants agreed with the Government about the importance of Church unity but considered that the authorities should not have imposed “unity” on them by force, under the leadership of Patriarch Maxim.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">145. In the Court’s view, the fact that policies and actions interfering with fundamental rights have been undertaken in the pursuit of goals viewed as being of primary national importance is relevant in the analysis of the interference’s legitimate aim and proportionality but cannot be regarded as a justification in itself. The aims of the interference and the means for achieving them must be scrutinised for conformity with the Convention, which enshrines fundamental principles indispensable for the existence and functioning of the democratic societies that make up the Council of Europe.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">146. The Court observes that the Bulgarian Constitution enshrines the separation between State and Church and, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, prohibits intervention by the State authorities with the leadership and organisation of religious communities (see paragraphs 65 and 66 above). It is significant that as many as half of the members of the Constitutional Court found, in 2003, that the 2002 Act was unconstitutional as it violated the above-mentioned principles. Although the remaining half of the justices upheld the Act, it is nonetheless clear that in the highest court in Bulgaria there was no majority acceptance of the view – advanced by the Government in this case – that the aim of overcoming the divisions in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church could justify State intervention forcing the religious community to unite (see paragraphs 75-79 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">147. Indeed, the present case is not about the desirability of finding a solution overcoming the divisions in the Church. It is about the fact that the authorities decided to impose a solution through legislative intervention and wide ranging actions eliminating the existence of one of the two opposing leaderships and forcing the believers under the leadership of Patriarch Maxim. The Court’s case-law in this respect is clear: in democratic societies it is not for the State to take measures to ensure that religious communities remain or are brought under a unified leadership. State measures favouring a particular leader of a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community, or part of it, to place itself under a single leadership against its will would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion (see the cases cited in paragraphs 119-122 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">148. The Court firmly reiterates this principle in the present case. Pluralism, which is the basic fabric of democracy, is incompatible with State action forcing a religious community to unite under a single leadership. As the Court has stated in the context of Article 11 of the Convention – also relevant here – the fact that what was at issue touched on national symbols and national identity is not sufficient. The national authorities must display particular vigilance to ensure that national public opinion is not protected at the expense of the assertion of minority views, no matter how unpopular they may be (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-IX). The role of the authorities in a situation of conflict between or within religious groups is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other (see the cases cited in paragraphs 119-122 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">149. It follows that the unity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, while it is a matter of the utmost importance for its adherents and believers and for Bulgarian society in general, cannot justify State action imposing such unity by force in a deeply divided religious community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(iii) Alleged justification on the basis that Patriarch Maxim was the canonical head of the Church</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">150. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants’ rights was necessary in a democratic society because the unity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was proclaimed by its canons and Patriarch Maxim was its legitimate head, whom the State authorities had to assist. The third party agreed. The applicants did not accept this argument.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">151. As the Court has noted above, the measures against the applicants were not based on a binding decision by the religious community itself resolving the internal dispute (see paragraphs 42-64 above). In these circumstances, while it is true that many adherents of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, as well as Christian Orthodox churches from other countries, considered Patriarch Maxim the canonical leader, it is highly significant that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was deeply and genuinely divided and that the authorities proceeded to “resolve” the dispute without regard to the constitutional principle of State neutrality in religious matters and to the position of the other part of the religious community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">152. In particular, the Court notes that the Bulgarian courts which refused the applicant organisation’s requests for registration after the entry into force of the 2002 Act relied on two main arguments: (i) the applicant organisation had not been recorded at the Sofia City Court as being the Church’s leadership; and (ii) Patriarch Maxim was “publicly known and internationally recognised” as the head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see paragraphs 50-53 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">153. As regards the first argument, the Court observes that it is unclear whether the Sofia City Court, acting under section 18 of the 2002 Act, has recorded Patriarch Maxim as the person representing the Church. Even if it has, there was no clear basis for the Sofia City Court to identify the “valid” leadership of the Church, other than an “expert opinion” submitted to it by the Directorate of Religious Denominations attached to the Government (see paragraphs 48 and 74 above). If no such recording was made, there was, similarly, no clear basis for anyone to identify the legal representative of the Church. That was so because the 2002 Act introduced the ex lege recognition of the Church as a body represented by a single leadership at a time when two leaderships claimed legitimacy and used two different versions of the Statute of the Church. Therefore, the courts’ first argument – that Metroplitan Inokentiy had not been recorded as the representative of the Church – did not have sound legal basis and, moreover, may be seen as nothing more than a statement that the Government and the majority in Parliament did not consider him to be the canonical leader of the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">154. As to the second argument, the courts failed to explain the reasons why they considered irrelevant the fact that Patriarch Pimen and Metropolitan Inokentiy were also “publicly known” to a significant number of believers as the leaders of the Church, albeit probably less so than Patriarch Maxim.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">155. In all circumstances, since in passing and implementing the 2002 Act the authorities disregarded the position of numerous Christian Orthodox believers in Bulgaria who supported the applicant organisation, the Court considers that the Government’s purported aim of securing respect for the precepts of religious canon cannot justify, in a democratic society, the far-reaching action the State took to impose organisational unity by force on a deeply divided religious community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(iv) Significance of the interference and quality of the law</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">156. As the Court has already noted, the State interfered in the internal organisation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church through sweeping measures going as far as imposing on the divided religious community a single leadership and employing State power, including legislative prohibitions and police actions, to put an end to the activities of the alternative leadership, the applicant organisation.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">157. The Court considers that the disproportionate nature of the interference complained of was exacerbated by the fact that it was effected through legal techniques of questionable quality, having regard to the Convention principles of the rule of law and clarity and foreseeability of the law. In particular, the Court notes that the impugned provisions of the 2002 Act were formulated with a false appearance of neutrality and that the courts and prosecuting authorities did not have clear basis to identify the “valid” leadership of the Church. Some domestic courts and the prosecuting authorities did so essentially on the basis of the views of the majority in Parliament and the Government that Patriarch Maxim was the sole legitimate representative of the Church (see paragraphs 42-53, 58 and 70-79 above). In the Court’s view, the 2002 Act did not meet the Convention standards of quality of the law, in so far as its provisions disregarded the fact that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was deeply divided and left open to arbitrary interpretation the issue of legal representation of the Church (see paragraphs 48, 74 and 150-155 above). Moreover, although the ex lege recognition of the Church cannot be seen as incompatible with Article 9 in principle, its introduction in a time of deep division was tantamount to forcing the believers to accept a single leadership against their will. Those provisions of the 2002 Act – still in force – continue to generate legal uncertainty, as it can be seen from the contradictory judicial decisions that have been adopted and the events that have unfolded since the Act’s entry into force (see paragraphs 42-48, 53, 54, 62-64, 70-79, 81 and 140-142 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">158. In addition, as the Court found above, the massive evictions carried out in July 2004 by prosecutors’ orders cannot be considered lawful, having regard to the provisions of the Bulgarian Constitution on freedom of religion, the lack of clear basis to identify the “valid” leadership of the Church and the fact that they purported to “resolve” private disputes, including about property, which fell under the jurisdiction of the courts (see paragraphs 56-61, 65, 66 and 140 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 78.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(v) Conclusion as regards legitimate aim, proportionality and necessity in a democratic society</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">159. The Court finds that while the leadership dispute in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was a source of legitimate concern for the State authorities, their intervention was disproportionate. In particular, the pertinent provisions of the 2002 Act, which did not meet the Convention standard of quality of the law, and their implementation through sweeping measures forcing the community to unite under the leadership favoured by the Government went beyond any legitimate aim and interfered with the organisational autonomy of the Church and the applicants’ rights under Article 9 of the Convention in a manner which cannot be accepted as lawful and necessary in a democratic society, despite the wide margin of appreciation left to the national authorities.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">5. The Court’s conclusion under Article 9</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">160. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">161. The applicants complained that as a result of the enactment of the 2002 Act and its implementation they had been denied access to a court to have their civil rights recognised and had been deprived of their property. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 6 § 1</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 1 of Protocol No. 1</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties’ submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">162. The applicants stated that the enactment and implementation of the 2002 Act had had the effect of barring their access to the courts and was as such an inadmissible intervention by the authorities. The applicant organisation stood no chance of seeking the protection of the civil courts since the courts had refused to recognise it as the legitimate representative of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and had refused its requests for registration. Moreover, during the evictions of July 2004 the applicants had been deprived of notary deeds and other documents necessary to prove their rights.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">163. All the applicants also stated that in 2003 and 2004 they had been deprived of their property through legislative acts and arbitrary decisions by the prosecuting authorities. The applicant organisation provided a list of churches that had been constructed after 1996, when Patriarch Pimen and later Metropolitan Inokentiy had become leaders, and churches for which they possessed notary deeds issued in the name of the church councils which apparently recognised the authority of the applicant organisation. The applicants had been expelled from churches and other premises which belonged to the applicant organisation and its local parishes. As a result, the individual applicants, employees of the Church, had been deprived of their income.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">164. The Government stated that the authorities had never limited the applicants’ right of access to the courts. Their requests for registration had been examined and refused. The applicants had not filed actions to seek recovery of property or the determination of other civil rights. The fact that such actions would be probably destined to fail was a separate issue and did not concern access to court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">165. The Government noted that the temples and other assets in question had never been taken away from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which was its owner. The applicants in fact claimed a right to have control over the Church and its property. The applicants had not shown that they had their own property rights over the temples or other buildings at issue or any other interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Their lists of churches were unreliable, as was illustrated by the fact that churches built centuries ago figured on it. Their claim that some of the churches from which they had been evicted had been built by them was unproven. In the Government’s view, the prosecuting authorities had lawfully acted to remove the applicants from the premises at the request of Patriarch Maxim, the lawful representative of the Church, which was the sole owner of the properties at issue.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">166. The third party submitted that it owned the property claimed by the applicants, who had occupied it unlawfully.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court’s assessment</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">167. The Court considers that, having regard to the specificity of the issues raised in the present case under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it must examine separately the complaints submitted by the applicant organisation and the complaints lodged by the six individual applicants.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Complaints submitted by the individual applicants</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">168. The Court notes that the six individual applicants did not allege that they had a proprietary interest of any kind in the temples, office buildings or other property over which the applicant organisation had lost control as a result of the events complained of. In so far as the applicants claimed that they had suffered a loss of income, the Court notes that none of them has clarified the dates and surrounding circumstances of any termination of their functions. In so far as the applicants may be understood to be claiming that they felt unable to continue to perform their functions, and thus lost income, as a result of the fact that the State forcibly imposed on them leaders whom they did not accept as legitimate, the Court considers that this statement only concerns alleged damage resulting from the violation of Article 9 found in this case and does not disclose a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds that the assertion by the six individual applicants that they could not turn to the civil courts to seek the determination of their own civil rights and obligations is not supported by convincing arguments.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">169. The Court thus finds that the complaints of the six individual applicants that the events at issue violated their rights under Article 6 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are unsubstantiated and must be rejected as unproven.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Complaints submitted by the applicant organisation</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(a) Alleged lack of access to court (Article 6 § 1)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">170. The Court notes that at all relevant times the applicant organisation and the organisation headed by Patriarch Maxim have been de facto two rival structures, each of them considering itself to be the legitimate personification of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Neither the applicant organisation nor the supporters of Patriarch Maxim have ever sought legal personality or a separate existence from the Church. Each of the two rival groups regarded the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as one indivisible whole in law and in canon and sought recognition as its sole legitimate leadership (see paragraphs 14-54 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">171. It is clear, therefore, that the applicant organisation’s complaint about denial of access to the courts concerns in reality the impossibility for its leaders to continue to act on behalf of the legal person of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church after the 2002 Act’s entry into force. This grievance is indistinguishable from the complaint that the authorities put an end to the applicant organisation’s existence as the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church through an unlawful and unjustified interference resulting from the provisions of the 2002 Act and the measures for their implementation. The Court has already examined this complaint, which is properly dealt with under Article 9 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">172. The Court finds, therefore, that no separate issue arises under Article 6 § 1, in so far as the applicant organisation is concerned.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(b) Alleged deprivation of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">173. Having regard to the specificity of the applicant organisation’s position, the Court notes that the applicant organisation’s complaint about deprivation of possessions does not concern State action dispossessing the legal person of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church but State interference in the internal organisation of the Church by way of legislation and decisions imposing Patriarch Maxim as the sole legitimate head of the Church.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">174. However, this is an issue which has already been examined by the Court under Article 9 of the Convention. The applicant organisation’s submissions about churches built with the contribution of its supporters or under its leadership and about other assets taken away from it concern aspects of the State interference with the internal organisation of the Church which has been dealt with under Article 9. The Court finds that the complaints about the pecuniary consequences of this interference do not raise a separate issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">175. The applicants complained that they did not have effective remedies in respect of the violations of their Convention rights. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">176. The Government stated that no separate issue arose under Article 13 of the Convention. The third party did not comment.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">177. The applicants’ grievance under Article 9 of the Convention being arguable, the Court finds that Article 13 is applicable in the present case. It reiterates, however, that this provision does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 105-108, ECHR 2005-IX, and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community, cited above, §§ 107-109).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">178. In the present case the interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 9 of the Convention resulted from the 2002 Act and the measures for its implementation (see paragraphs 42-64 above). In the proceedings instituted by the applicants after the Act had come into force, their attempts to obtain protection failed since the courts and the prosecutors interpreted the 2002 Act as directly settling the leadership dispute in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see paragraphs 49-53, 58 and 60 above). In these specific circumstances, it cannot be considered that Article 13 required that special remedies to challenge the provisions of the 2002 Act for their conformity with the Convention should have been available to the applicants.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">179. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 13.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">180. Article 41 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Damage</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">181. The applicants claimed EUR 679,504,609 in respect of pecuniary damage, which, in their view, included the value of 107 temples and other buildings and unpaid wages and benefits for a number of clergy and support staff who had allegedly lost their jobs as a result of the events at issue. They claimed, in addition, EUR 2,314,546 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government considered that these claims lacked any sound basis and were in any event exorbitant.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">182. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41, in so far as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage is concerned, is not ready for decision and reserves it, due regard being had to the possibility that an agreement between the respondent State and the applicants will be reached, taking into consideration the legitimate interests of all concerned (Rule 75 § 1 of the Rules of Court).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Costs and expenses</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">183. The applicants claimed EUR 13,400 in respect of legal fees for 130 hours of legal work by their lawyer at the hourly rate of EUR 60 and 140 hours of legal work by lawyers assisting him, at the hourly rate of EUR 40. This claim was supported by a document which the applicant’s lawyer described as an invoice.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">184. The applicants also claimed EUR 1,000 in respect of expenses such as translation, postage, copying, printing and telephone calls. Part of this claim was supported by copies of relevant invoices.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">185. The applicants stated that they claimed the above sums for work done and expenses incurred in relation to 74 cases before the Court but did not indicate the relevant application numbers. The cases in question apparently included the present case and also the applications mentioned in paragraph 82 above. The applicants did not clarify what portion of the costs thus claimed were incurred in relation to the present case.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">186. The Government stated that the costs relating to other applications pending before the Court should be deducted, that the hourly rate claimed in respect of legal fees was excessive and that the invoices presented by the applicants only concerned half of the relevant expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">187. The Court reiterates that an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that the applicants’ claims were unclear in that the exact costs relating to the present case were not stated. Also, only incomplete documentary proof was submitted.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">188. In these circumstances, taking into consideration that the present case undoubtedly involved substantial legal work and other costs for the applicants, but also having regard to the deficiencies in their claims, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 8,000 in respect of all costs and expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. Default interest</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">189. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of all applicants;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">2. Holds that there has been no violation of the rights of the six individual applicants under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">3. Holds that, in so far as the rights of the applicant organisation are concerned, no separate issues arise under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of any of the applicants;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">5. Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision in so far as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage is concerned;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">accordingly,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(a) reserves the said question;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(b) invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber the power to fix the same if need be;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">6. Holds</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(a) that in respect of costs and expenses the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly (to the six individual applicants and Metropolitan Inokentiy as the representative of the applicant organisation), within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for costs and expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Deputy Registrar President</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> “Law and religion: monitoring religious freedoms in Bulgaria”, p. 208, reports and discussion from a national conference held in Sofia (18-19 December 2003) and seminars in Plovdiv (26 January 2004) and Varna (18 March 2004), Iktus Print, Sofia, 2004 („Вероизповедания и закон: мониторинг на религиозните свободи в Република България”, доклади и становища от Национална конференция, София, 18-19.12.2003 и семинари в Пловдив, 26.01.2004 и Варна, 18.03.2004. Издателство Иктус Принт, София, 2004 ).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> Applications nos. 40047/04, 40092/04, 40176/04, 40179/04, 40187/04, 40194/04, 40199/04, 40208/04, 40212/04, 40215/04, 40235/04, 41081/04, 41114/04, 41161/04, 41163/04, 41290/04, 41338/04, 42105/04, 42112/04, 42118/04, 42125/04, 42129/04, 42134/04, 42156/04, 42157/04, 42202/04 and several other applications submitted in 2005 or later.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 48.0px;">HOLY SYNOD OF THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>(METROPOLITAN INOKENTIY) AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT</div><div><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-73121811889167643632010-12-27T16:54:00.002+01:002010-12-27T16:55:39.381+01:00CASE OF GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ELENKOV v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-6)<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FIFTH SECTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>CASE OF GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ELENKOV v. BULGARIA</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Application no. 14134/02)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">JUDGMENT</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">11 October 2007</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">FINAL</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">11/01/2008</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Mr P. LORENZEN, President, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr K. JUNGWIERT, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr R. MARUSTE, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr M. VILLIGER, judges, <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>and Mrs C. WESTERDIEK, Section Registrar,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2007,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in an application (no. 14134/02) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Glas Nadezhda EOOD, a single-member limited liability company having its registered office in Sofia, and its sole member and manager, Mr Anatoliy Elenkov, a Bulgarian national (“the applicants”), on 18 October 2001.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Karadzhova, of the Ministry of Justice.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. The applicants complained about the refusal of the competent body to grant Glas Nadezhda EOOD a radio broadcasting licence and about the refusal of the Supreme Administrative Court to review the merits of the decision made by this body. They alleged that these had breached their rights under Articles 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. On 8 December 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE FACTS</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Background</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. Mr Elenkov, who was born in 1972 and lives in Sofia, is a Christian and a follower of the Protestant Church in Bulgaria. In 2000 he decided to set up Glas Nadezhda EOOD, through which he would apply for a broadcasting licence for a religious radio station. He obtained support for this initiative from many domestic and foreign religious figures of various denominations, as well as from the Directorate of Religious Denominations at the Council of Ministers.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The application for a broadcasting licence and its denial</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. On 1 June 2000 the Council of Ministers announced that a number of frequencies for local radio broadcasting would be made available to private operators in several cities. Ten such licences were available for Sofia.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. On 16 August 2000 Glas Nadezhda EOOD applied to the State Telecommunications Commission (“the STC” – see paragraphs 24 and 25 below) for a broadcasting licence for a radio station with Christian religious programming for the Sofia City Region. In support of its application it presented, inter alia, a business plan, a programme project, a programme concept, a programme profile, and a programme scheme. It was apparent from these that it intended to broadcast mainly Christian religious programming.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">8. In line with the established procedure, the application was forwarded to the National Radio and Television Committee (“the NRTC” – see paragraph 27 below). After deliberating on the application on 26 September 2000, the Committee refused in a decision of 2 October 2000, which was not notified to Glas Nadezhda EOOD, to grant a broadcasting licence. It stated, without adding further detail, that although the company had submitted all the requisite documents, its programme documents did not correspond to points 3.4, 3.5 and 4.3 of the NRTC's criteria for licensing regional over-the-air radio operators, and only partly corresponded to points 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1 and 4.2 (see paragraph 28 below). Furthermore, Glas Nadezhda EOOD had no prior experience of creating programmes in the region.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">9. In accordance with the established procedure (see paragraph 26 below), this decision was sent to the STC.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">10. In a decision of 2 November 2000 the STC refused to grant a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD. It stated that its refusal was based on the NRTC's decision of 2 October 2000.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. The application for judicial review of the STC's decision</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">11. Glas Nadezhda EOOD lodged an application for judicial review of the STC's decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. It submitted that, since it was not clear whether the NRTC's decision was subject to direct review, the court should first examine its lawfulness before ruling on the lawfulness of the STC's decision. Glas Nadezhda EOOD further argued that it had produced all of the requisite documents, each of which corresponded to the NRTC's criteria. The fact that no reasons had been given on how, in the NRTC's view, these documents failed to meet the criteria, was in breach of the rules of procedure and the requirement that administrative decisions be reasoned. On the contrary, all of the NRTC's criteria had been complied with. The decisions had also been in breach of the substantive law and did not correspond to the latter's object and purpose. In a supplementary memorial Glas Nadezhda EOOD made detailed submissions in respect of each of its alleged failures to comply with the relevant NRTC criteria.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">12. In a judgment of 12 March 2001, a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application. It held that the NRTC's decision was subject to review in separate proceedings. However, Glas Nadezhda EOOD had not sought such review, whereas indirect review of that decision in proceedings against the STC's decision was impossible. The court went on to say that the STC's decision concerned the allocation of the radio spectrum, whereas the NRTC's decision related to the broadcasting content. It was therefore impossible to grant a broadcasting licence without a prior finding by the NRTC that it would be used for broadcasting quality programmes. In issuing its decision, the STC was therefore bound by the NRTC's decision and the latter's refusal had effectively precluded the former from granting the requested licence.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">13. Glas Nadezhda EOOD appealed on points of law to a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court. It argued, inter alia, that while it could be accepted that the NRTC's refusal was binding on the STC, the former was bound to give reasons for its decision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">14. In a final judgment of 11 July 2001 the five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the three-member panel's judgment, holding, inter alia, that the STC was bound by the NRTC's decision and could not have reviewed its lawfulness. Nor could the court, in proceedings against the STC's decision, examine the lawfulness of the NRTC's decision. It could do so only pursuant to an application for judicial review of the latter's decision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">D. The application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">15. Having been apprised of the tenor of the NRTC's decision in the course of the proceedings for judicial review of the STC's decision, on 1 March 2001 Glas Nadezhda EOOD made an application for its judicial review. It submitted that it had provided all necessary documents, thus establishing that it had complied with the NRTC's licensing criteria. However, that body had not pointed out any perceived deficiencies, thus failing to provide a duly reasoned decision and acting in breach of the rules of administrative procedure.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">16. In a judgment of 21 March 2002 a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application. It held that the NRTC's assessment of whether the licence application met its criteria was not subject to judicial scrutiny, since the NRTC enjoyed discretion in that respect. In the instant case it had found that the programme documents submitted by Glas Nadezhda EOOD did not meet its requirements for regional targeting, societal function and business perspective of the programming, and only partially met its criteria regarding the justification and uniqueness of its programme profile, conformity with the audience's expectations and professional and technological resources. These findings fell within the exclusive province of the NRTC.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">17. Glas Nadezhda EOOD appealed on points of law to a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, reiterating its arguments.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">18. In a final judgment of 28 December 2002 the five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the three-member panel's judgment, fully endorsing its reasoning.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">E. The attempt to obtain a copy of the minutes of the NRTC's deliberations</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">19. On 16 November 2000 Mr Elenkov, acting on behalf of Glas Nadezhda EOOD, requested the NRTC to provide it with a copy of the minutes of the deliberations at which it had examined its application for a broadcasting licence. He relied on the Access to Public Information Act 2000 (“Закон за достъп до обществена информация”).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">20. As the NRTC did not reply within the statutory time-limit, Mr Elenkov asked the Sofia City Court to review its tacit refusal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">21. In a judgment of 2 July 2001 the Sofia City Court quashed the NRTC's tacit refusal and ordered it to reply to the request for information. It held that the minutes of the NRTC's deliberations were public information within the meaning of the Access to Public Information Act 2000.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">22. The NRTC did not appeal and shortly afterwards the judgment entered into force. However, at the time of the latest receipt of information from the applicants (26 June 2006) the NRTC had still not complied with the judgment and had not replied to the applicants' request for information.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The Constitution</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">23. The relevant provisions of the Constitution of 1991 read as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 37</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The State shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations, and between believers and non-believers.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 39</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion or to publicise it through words, written or oral, sound, or image, or in any other way.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. This right shall not be used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others, or for the incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order, the perpetration of a crime, or the incitement of enmity or violence against anyone.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 40</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. The press and the other mass media shall be free and not subject to censorship.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Printed matter or another information medium may be stopped or confiscated only pursuant to an act of the judicial authorities, where it encroaches on good morals or incites to a forcible change of the constitutionally established order, the perpetration of a crime or an act of violence against the person. ...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 41</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information. The exercise of that right may not be directed against the rights and the good name of other citizens, nor against national security, public order, public health or morals.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Citizens shall have the right to information from state bodies or agencies on any matter of legitimate interest to them, unless the information is a state secret or a secret protected by law, or it affects the rights of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Telecommunications Act 1998</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">24. At the material time the Telecommunications Act 1998 (“Закон за далекосъобщенията”) regulated all forms of telecommunication, such as telephony and radio and television broadcasting. The main regulatory body having authority under the Act was the STC (renamed Telecommunications Regulation Commission in February 2002). At the relevant time it had the power to, inter alia, grant, amend, supplement, freeze, discontinue and withdraw radio and television broadcasting licences, following a decision by the NRTC (section 27(5) of the Act, as in force at the material time).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">25. The STC was a collective body attached to the Council of Ministers (section 22(1) of the Act, as in force at the material time). It had five members, nominated by the Council of Ministers and appointed by the prime minister for a term of seven years, renewable once (section 23(1) and (2) of the Act, as in force at the material time). The members could be dismissed prematurely only if they resigned, seriously breached the provisions of the Act, seriously or systematically violated their official duties, committed a wilful publicly prosecutable criminal offence, or were unable to perform their duties for more than six months (section 23(4) of the Act, as in force at the material time). The organisation and the operation of the STC and of its secretariat were laid down in regulations issued by the Council of Ministers (section 26(1) of the Act, as in force at the material time).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. The Radio and Television Act 1998</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">26. Under section 105(1) of the Radio and Television Act 1998 (“Закон за радиото и телевизията”), as in force at the relevant time, radio and television broadcasting was only allowed under a licence granted by the STC. The application for a licence had to be filed with the STC and accompanied by, as relevant, a programme project, a programme concept, a programme profile and a programme scheme (section 111 of the Act, as in force at the relevant time). A STC official checked the submitted documents and, if he or she found any irregularities, advised the applicant, which then had seven days to rectify them. If the applicant failed to do so, the application was not considered (section 112 of the Act, as in force at the relevant time). The STC was to transmit the accepted application, plus enclosures, to the NRTC (section 113 of the Act, as in force at the relevant time), which then had to make a reasoned decision on the application within one month (section 115(1) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time). The decision was then transmitted to the STC within seven days (section 115(2) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time), which issued the licence, where appropriate, within one month (section 115(4) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">27. The NRTC was an independent body responsible for protecting freedom of expression, the independence of radio and television operators and the interests of the audience (section 20(1) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time). Five of its nine members were elected by the National Assembly, and the remaining four were appointed by the President of the Republic (section 24(1) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time). Alongside some consultative powers, it was entrusted with supervising the activities of radio and television operators and granting, modifying and withdrawing broadcasting licences (section 32(1)(1) and (9) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time). In November 2001 the NRTC was renamed the Electronic Media Council.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">D. Programme criteria of the NRTC</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">28. In issue 5/6 of 2000 of its bulletin, the NRTC published its “Programme criteria for the licensing of regional over-the-air radio operators”. They read as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Legal status</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">1.1. Conformity to the requirements of section 105 of the Radio and Television Act 1998. Note: compliance with this criterion is mandatory for admitting the applicant to assessment under the remainder of the criteria.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">1.2. Transparency and structure of the [operator's] capital 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Experience in setting up radio programmes</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2.1. Degree of legality of the previous experience 0 to 10 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">Note: the assessment is made on an inverse scale; an applicant which has received 0 points is not assessed under criteria 2.2., 2.3. and 2.4.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2.2. Population coverage ratio of the [radio station's] communication 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">Note: the population coverage ratio of the communication is assessed on the basis of the audience for the region in percentage points.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2.3. Uniqueness of the form of communication 0 to 3 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2.4. Societal function 0 to 3 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– information and commentary</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– culture and education</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– programming for disadvantaged groups</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2.5. Previously established violations of the [Radio and Television Act] 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">Note: the assessment is made on an inverse scale, on the basis of a report by the NRTC's monitoring department.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3. Programme aims</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3.1. Justification of the selected programme profile 0 to 10 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">Note: [If awarded] 0 points the applicant is not assessed under the other criteria.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3.2. Uniqueness (for the region) of the programme profile 0 to 10 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3.3. Conformity with the audience's expectations 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3.4. Regional targeting of the programme 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3.5. Societal function 0 to 10 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– information and commentary</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– culture and education</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– programming for disadvantaged groups</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">4. Capacity to produce the programme</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">4.1. Professional resources 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">4.2. Technological resources 0 to 5 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">4.3. Business perspective 0 to 10 points</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">5. Setting up of radio networks in more than one region</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">5.1. Programme capabilities for supra-regional communication</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">5.2. Regional targeting of the individual programmes</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">Note: the assessment under [criteria] 5.1. and 5.2. is from 0 to 3 points and is made by multiplying the two results.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">The maximum number of points under all criteria is 100.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">E. Judgment no. 10 of 1999 of the Constitutional Court</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">29. On 25 June 1999 the Constitutional Court gave judgment (реш. № 10 от 25 юни 1999 г. по к.д. № 36 от 1998 г., обн. ДВ, бр. 60 от 2 юли 1999 г.) in proceedings brought by fifty-two members of Parliament who considered that a number of provisions of the Radio and Television Act 1998 should be declared contrary to the Constitution. The court held, as relevant:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“Under the Telecommunications Act [1998], licences are granted by the STC and approved by the Council of Ministers. Whereas this licensing relates to the setting up of telecommunication networks and to the use of the radio frequency spectrum and its allocation, the NRTC's decision under the [Radio and Television Act 1998] relates to the content of the services which will be broadcast. The provisions of the [Telecommunications Act 1998] relate to licensing for the setting up of telecommunications networks and the provision of services through the radio frequency spectrum. Supervision of the preparation, creation and broadcasting of radio and television programmes ... falls outside the competence of the STC.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">As regards the media, and radio and television in particular, there exists the instruction [implicit] in Article 40 § 1 of the Constitution that they be transformed into autonomous public institutions, freed of the tutelage of a specific government agency. For this reason the regulation of radio and television is entrusted ... to the NRTC, which is not a government agency.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">Over recent years Bulgarian law has for the first time differentiated between the regimes for establishing telecommunications operators and those for establishing radio and television operators. The licensing of telecommunication operators is governed by the [Telecommunications Act 1998], whereas the licensing in respect of programme content is governed by the [Radio and Television Act 1998]. These are two differing types of activity: the first mainly monitors compliance with technological requirements under the [Telecommunications Act 1998], whereas the second monitors aesthetical and artistic qualities under the [Radio and Television Act 1998]. At the same time, the media law does not allow the independence of the procedure for issuing radio and television licences to be called into question, because section 115 of the [Radio and Television Act 1998] instructs the NRTC to make a reasoned decision on each application for a licence for electronic media broadcasting. If the NRTC's decision is to allow the application, it encloses the draft licence. The assertion ... that 'the STC is not bound by the decision of the NRTC [and that i]t may grant a licence or deny one irrespective of the positive decision of the NRTC' is unfounded. The [STC] has no right to review compliance with the criteria laid down in the [Radio and Television Act 1998]. All questions relating to the granting, modification, or withdrawal of radio and television broadcasting licences, respectively to guaranteeing freedom of expression through the media, fall within the mandate of the NRTC.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">This court has many times ruled on the relations between the communications rights and the regulatory bodies in the information field. The connection between freedom of speech and the powers of the STC were examined in judgment no. 33 of 1998 [(решение № 33 от 8 декември 1998 г. по к.д. № 30 от 1998 г., обн., ДВ, брой 147 от 15 декември 1998 г.)], whose reasoning is also applicable in the instant case. This judgment states: 'As already found by [this court] in its judgment no. 7 of 1996 [(решение № 7 от 4 юни 1996 г. по к.д. № 1 от 1996 г., обн., ДВ , брой 55 от 28 юни 1996 г.)], State interference in the allocation of the radio frequency spectrum is inevitable. It follows that the freedom of the electronic media under Article 40 § 1 of the Constitution does not exclude State interference. The underlying principles of Article 40 § 1 may be complied with by making the licensing conditions and procedure public, accessible and preordained.'”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">F. Judicial review of the decisions of the STC and the NRTC</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">30. Under section 25(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1998, the decisions of the STC were subject to review by the Supreme Administrative Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">31. Section 38 of the Radio and Television Act 1998, as worded at the material time, provided that the NRTC's decisions to grant, amend or withdraw a broadcasting licence were also subject to review by the Supreme Administrative Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">32. Under section 41(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act 1979 (“Закон за административното производство”), which at the material time regulated, inter alia, the procedure for judicial review of administrative decisions, the reviewing court had to verify whether an administrative decision was lawful, that is, made by a competent body in due form, in compliance with the relevant procedural and substantive rules, and in conformity with the object and purpose of the law. Similarly, section 12 of the Supreme Administrative Court Act 1997 (“Закон за Върховния административен съд”), as in force at the relevant time, provided that the grounds for annulling administrative decisions were lack of competence of the body which had made the decision, its failure to make the decision in due form, a material breach of the rules of administrative procedure, a breach of the substantive law or non-conformity with the object and purpose of the law.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">33. On 20 December 2000 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation no. R (2000) 23 to Member States on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector, in which it recommended that the Member States, inter alia, “include provisions in their legislation and measures in their policies entrusting the regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector with powers which enable them to fulfil their missions, as prescribed by national law, in an effective, independent and transparent manner, in accordance with the guidelines set out in the appendix to this recommendation”.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">34. The guidelines, featuring as an appendix to the recommendation, provide, as relevant:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">3. The rules governing regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector, especially their membership, are a key element of their independence. Therefore, they should be defined so as to protect them against any interference, in particular by political forces or economic interests.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">4. For this purpose, specific rules should be defined as regards incompatibilities in order to avoid that:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– regulatory authorities are under the influence of political power;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– members of regulatory authorities exercise functions or hold interests in enterprises or other organisations in the media or related sectors, which might lead to a conflict of interest in connection with membership of the regulatory authority.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">5. Furthermore, rules should guarantee that the members of these authorities:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– are appointed in a democratic and transparent manner;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– may not receive any mandate or take any instructions from any person or body;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– do not make any statement or undertake any action which may prejudice the independence of their functions and do not take any advantage of them.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">13. One of the essential tasks of regulatory authorities in the broadcasting sector is normally the granting of broadcasting licences. The basic conditions and criteria governing the granting and renewal of broadcasting licences should be clearly defined in the law.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">14. The regulations governing the broadcasting licensing procedure should be clear and precise and should be applied in an open, transparent and impartial manner. The decisions made by the regulatory authorities in this context should be subject to adequate publicity.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">27. All decisions taken and regulations adopted by the regulatory authorities should be:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– duly reasoned, in accordance with national law;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– open to review by the competent jurisdictions according to national law;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">– made available to the public.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">35. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the authorities' refusal to grant Glas Nadezhda EOOD a broadcasting licence had not been justified under paragraph 2 of that Article.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">36. Article 10 provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties' submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">37. The Government conceded that the denial of a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD had amounted to an interference with the applicants' freedom to impart information and ideas. In their view, however, this interference had been authorised under the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention. The licensing of radio broadcasters had been specifically envisioned by the Radio and Television Act 1998. It had been entrusted to a special body, the NRTC, charged with protecting freedom of expression. Moreover, the law regulating licensing had been sufficiently clear in its terms. The NRTC's decision had been based on quite detailed and publicly announced criteria. The NRTC had clearly indicated, as could also be seen from the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 March 2002, which of those criteria had not been met by Glas Nadezhda EOOD. Some of the criteria were formal, while others had related to the utility and the feasibility of the proposed radio station. This could not be seen as unlawful, arbitrary or discriminatory, as indicated by the former Commission in its decision in the case of Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern et Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland (no. 10746/84, Commission decision of 16 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49). The decision to refuse the licence had been based on the failure by Glas Nadezhda EOOD to meet a number of the announced criteria. This decision had been the result of a detailed examination and had been reviewed by two levels of court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">38. The applicants submitted that the manner in which the NRTC had applied its criteria for evaluating candidates for broadcasting licences had been arbitrary. Firstly, those candidates had had no direct contact with the NRTC, which had engendered delay and confusion. Secondly, the points system adopted by the NRTC had not been properly operated. It was natural to expect that each candidate would be allotted a certain number of points, that later a ranking would be made, and that the candidate obtaining the highest number of points would be granted a licence. However, the NRTC had eschewed such allotting of points, instead merely informing the candidates that they would or would not be granted a licence. The procedure followed had not been public and transparent. The NRTC had not disclosed the reasons for its decisions and the candidates had not been told why some of them had been approved and others not. Their evaluations had never been made public. These deficiencies had not been addressed or remedied in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, which had deprived judicial review of all practical meaning. For all these reasons, the applicants were of the view that the interference with their freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">39. The applicants further argued that the NRTC's decision in their particular case had exemplified the flaws outlined above. The decision had also failed to strike a proper balance between the various interests at stake. The decision had found that Glas Nadezhda EOOD had not met a number of the NRTC's criteria. However, some of these criteria had not been legitimate requirements in a democratic society, while others had been clearly unfounded. Thus, the requirement of “regional targeting” had been unclear. The requirement of “business perspective” had been inapposite, as the radio station had not been envisaged as a business venture. The requirement to serve a “societal function”, as set out in the NRTC's programme criteria, had not been a legitimate one in a democratic society. The NRTC's programme criteria had specified this to mean that the radio had to provide “information and commentary”, “culture and education” and “programming for disadvantaged groups”. As the NRTC's decision had not elaborated on how Glas Nadezhda EOOD had failed to meet these requirements and as the applicants could not obtain information on the NRTC's deliberations, they inferred this to mean that religious programming had been deemed unacceptable in itself. In their view, such a policy would be in breach of both Articles 9 and 10. Finally, the finding that the radio's programme would lack uniqueness had been clearly unfounded, as no Christian religious radio existed on the territory of Sofia or anywhere in Bulgaria, despite sociological evidence that the audience would welcome such broadcasting.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court's assessment</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Admissibility</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">40. The Court notes at the outset that it was only the applicant company, Glas Nadezhda EOOD, which applied for and was denied a licence (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). The issue thus arises whether the second applicant, Mr Elenkov, who is its sole member and manager, may himself claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court notes that in the case of Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland it found that the sole shareholder and statutory representative of a company could also be considered as a victim as regards a ban on broadcasting (see Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 21, § 49). Since the case at hand is indistinguishable in this respect, the Court considers that Mr Elenkov may also claim to be a victim of a violation. Indeed, the Government did not dispute this.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">41. The Court further finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also considers that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Merits</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(a) Has there been an interference with the applicants' freedom of expression?</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">42. The refusal to grant Glas Nadezhda EOOD a broadcasting licence constituted an interference with both applicants' freedom to impart information and ideas (see Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern et Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel, cited above, p. 126; Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 13, § 27; Radio ABC v. Austria, judgment of 20 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, p. 2197, § 27; Leveque v. France (dec.), no. 35591/97, 23 November 1999; Brook v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38218/97, 11 July 2000; United Christian Broadcasters Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44802/98, 7 November 2000; and Demuth v. Switzerland, no. 38743/97, § 30, ECHR 2002-IX; and also, mutatis mutandis, Groppera Radio AG and Others, cited above, p. 22, § 55; Autronic AG v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 23, § 47; Tele 1 Privatfernsehgesellschaft mbH v. Austria, no. 32240/96, § 24, 21 September 2000; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 61, 10 July 2003).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">43. It must therefore be determined whether this interference was “prescribed by law”, pursued one or more legitimate aims under the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10 or under paragraph 2 thereof, and was “necessary in a democratic society”.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">44. When doing so, the Court will bear in mind that under the third sentence of Article 10 § 1 States are permitted to regulate by means of a licensing system the way in which broadcasting is organised in their territories, particularly in its technical aspects. The grant of a licence may also be made conditional on such matters as the nature and objectives of a proposed station, its potential audience at national, regional or local level, the rights and needs of a specific audience and the obligations deriving from international legal instruments. However, the compatibility of such interferences must be assessed in the light of the requirements of paragraph 2 (see United Christian Broadcasters Ltd; and Demuth, §§ 33-35, both cited above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(b) Was the interference justified?</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">45. The first step in the Court's inquiry is to determine whether the denial of a broadcasting licence was “prescribed by law”, within the meaning of Article 10. According to its settled case-law, this expression, which is also used in Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, and the expression “in accordance with the law”, used in Article 8 of the Convention, not only require that an interference with the rights enshrined in these Articles should have some basis in domestic law, but also refer to the quality of the law in question. That law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them – if need be, with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among many other authorities, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">46. Domestic law must also afford a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interferences by public authorities with the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In matters affecting fundamental rights it would be contrary to the rule of law, one of the basic principles of a democratic society enshrined in the Convention, for a legal discretion granted to the executive to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power. Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI). It must furthermore provide adequate and effective safeguards against abuse, which may in certain cases include procedures for effective scrutiny by the courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, § 34, 8 June 2006).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">47. Turning to the present case, the Court notes at the outset that the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression stemmed entirely from the NRTC's decision, which by law was considered binding on the STC (see paragraphs 12, 14 and 29 above). The Court may thus confine its examination to that decision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">48. The Court observes that the grant or refusal of a broadcasting licence was premised on the applicants' compliance with a number of criteria published by the NRTC in its bulletin. Some of these criteria – such as the requirement to have sufficient “experience in setting up radio programmes” and “technological resources” – seem quite clear, while others – such as the serving of a “societal function” – less so (see paragraph 28 above). Most of the criteria could, despite the points system adopted, be subject to a highly subjective assessment.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">49. The Court is prepared to accept that these criteria were, in the special context, sufficiently accessible and precise to comply with the Convention requirement of lawfulness (see, mutatis mutandis, Groppera Radio AG and Others, cited above, p. 26, § 68). However, it must further verify whether the manner in which the NRTC applied them in the licensing process provided sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">50. In this respect, the Court notes that the NRTC did not hold any form of public hearings and that its deliberations were kept secret, despite a court order to provide to the applicants a copy of the minutes of these deliberations (see paragraphs 8 and 19-22 above). Furthermore, in its decision the NRTC did not give reasons why it considered that Glas Nadezhda EOOD did not correspond or only partially corresponded to a number of its criteria; it merely stated that this was so (see paragraph 8 above). The applicants or the public were thus not made aware on what basis the NRTC had exercised its discretion to deny a broadcasting licence.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">51. This lack of reasons was not made good in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, because the Supreme Administrative Court held that NRTC's discretion was unreviewable (see paragraphs 16 and 18 above). This, coupled with the somewhat vague purport of certain of the NRTC's programme criteria, denied the applicants legal protection against arbitrary interferences with their freedom of expression. In this connection, the Court notes that the guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the broadcasting regulation domain call for open and transparent application of the regulations governing the licensing procedure and specifically recommend that “[a]ll decisions taken ... by the regulatory authorities ... be ... duly reasoned [and] open to review by the competent jurisdictions” (see paragraphs 33 and 34 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">52. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression did not meet the Convention requirements of lawfulness. That being so, it is not required to determine whether this interference pursued a legitimate aim and, if so, whether it was proportionate to the aim sought to be attained.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">53. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">54. The applicants complained under Article 9 of the Convention that the authorities' refusal to grant Glas Nadezhda EOOD a broadcasting licence had substantially restricted their possibility to communicate their religious ideas to others and had thus infringed their freedom to manifest their religion. In their view, this refusal had not been justified under the second paragraph of that Article for the same reasons as the ones indicated under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">55. Article 9 provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties' submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">56. The Government submitted that the criteria on which the NRTC had based its denial of a broadcasting licence had not included a religious element. Nor had the NRTC grounded its decision on the religious nature of the radio's proposed programme. On the contrary, it could be seen from the documents in the file that the authorities with competence for religious issues had endorsed Glas Nadezhda EOOD's licence application. However, that application, like any other, had to comply with the criteria published by the NRTC. The denial of the licence on the basis of its failure to meet these criteria had not amounted to an interference with the applicants' right to manifest their religion or belief.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">57. The applicants relied on the same arguments as those presented under Article 10 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court's assessment</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">58. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above. It must therefore likewise be declared admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">59. However, having regard to its findings under Article 10 (see paragraphs 42-53 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to additionally examine whether there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention (see United Christian Broadcasters Ltd; and Murphy, §§ 60 and 61, both cited above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">60. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 about the refusal by the Supreme Administrative Court to review the merits of the decisions of the STC and the NRTC. They also claimed that they had been denied an effective remedy on account of the need to go through two separate sets of proceedings.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">61. Article 13 provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties' submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">62. The Government submitted that in the domestic proceedings Glas Nadezhda EOOD had not pleaded an infringement of its religious rights, but solely of its freedom of expression. Its grievances in this respect had been examined twice by two levels of court. The Supreme Administrative Court had not proceeded any differently than in any other case submitted to it – it had reviewed the legality of the administrative decision in line with the relevant criteria. It was a well-known fact that judicial review concerned solely the lawfulness of an administrative decision. This had been done by all levels of court which had examined the case.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">63. The applicants submitted that the refusal by the domestic courts to examine the merits of the application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision had deprived them of an effective remedy. They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (cited above), and argued that the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the competent bodies enjoyed unreviewable discretion when examining applications for licences had been contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which required a remedy allowing full examination of the necessity of the interference with their Article 9 and Article 10 rights.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court's assessment</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Admissibility</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">64. The Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further finds that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Merits</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">65. According to the Court's settled case-law, Article 13 guarantees the availability of a remedy at national level to enforce – and hence to allege non-compliance with – the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. However, such a remedy is only required in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">66. In light of the finding of a violation of Article 10 above, the complaint is clearly arguable. The Court must thus verify whether the applicants had a remedy at national level to enforce the substance of their Convention rights.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">67. In this connection, the Court notes that in the first set of judicial review proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court held that it was precluded from examining the lawfulness of the NRTC's decision and could only scrutinise the STC's decision (see paragraphs 12 and 14 above). This may be seen as problematic, in that the NRTC's decision was never officially communicated to Glas Nadezhda EOOD on account of the two-tier procedure under domestic law (see paragraphs 8 and 26 above). However, the Court considers that the obtaining situation did not fall foul of Article 13, as the applicants were later able to challenge the NRTC's decision in direct review proceedings (see paragraphs 15-18 above). In certain circumstances the aggregate of remedies provided by national law may satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (see, among many other authorities, Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 30, § 77).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">68. Turning to the proceedings against the NRTC's decision, the Court observes that the Supreme Administrative Court made it clear that it could not scrutinise the manner in which that body had assessed the compliance of Glas Nadezhda EOOD's programme documents with the relevant criteria, that assessment being within the NRTC's discretionary powers (see paragraphs 16 and 18 above). It thus refused to interfere with the exercise of NRTC's discretion on substantive grounds and did not examine the issues going to the merits of the applicants' Article 10 grievance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">69. The Court was faced with comparable situations in the cases of Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom and Peck v. the United Kingdom. In these cases, the English courts had not taken into account the applicants' arguments based on the Convention, but had confined their inquiry to whether the authorities which had interfered with their Convention rights had acted in an “irrational” manner in exercising their discretion (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 136 and 137, ECHR 1999-VI; and Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 105, ECHR 2003-I). The Court held in both cases that this approach fell short of the requirements of Article 13, because the effective remedy required by this Article was one where the domestic authority examining the case had to consider the substance of the Convention complaint. In these cases that meant an examination of whether the interferences with the applicants' rights had answered a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (see Smith and Grady, § 138; and Peck, § 106, both cited above). In the more recent case of Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom the Court found a violation of Article 13 because the scope of review by the domestic courts had been limited to the classic English public-law concepts, such as irrationality, unlawfulness and patent unreasonableness, and had not allowed consideration of whether the measures impinging on the applicants' Convention rights had amounted to a justifiable limitation (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 141, ECHR 2003-VIII). Similarly, in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria the Court found a breach of Article 13 because, inter alia, in reviewing an administrative decision the former Bulgarian Supreme Court had refused to study the substantive issues, considering that the authority which had interfered with the applicants' Convention rights had enjoyed full discretion (see Hasan and Chaush, cited above, § 100).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">70. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, as in the cases just cited, the approach taken by the Supreme Administrative Court in the instant case – refusing to interfere with the exercise of NRTC's discretion on substantive grounds – fell short of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">71. There has therefore been a violation of this provision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">72. Article 41 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Damage</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">73. The applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They submitted that the setting up of a religious radio station had been intended not as a business, but as a not-for-profit initiative. Eight proponents of this initiative had donated their time and efforts to prepare the documents for obtaining a broadcasting licence for this radio. The authorities' unwarranted denial of such a licence, accompanied by the impossibility to meaningfully challenge that denial, had frustrated all of them, as well as many other supporters of their religious community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">74. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">75. The Court notes that in awarding just satisfaction it can only take into account the damage sustained by the applicants, not by third parties. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and its case-law concerning claims for non-pecuniary damages made on behalf of legal persons or organisations (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 116, 16 December 2004, with further references), the Court considers that an award under this head is appropriate to both Mr Elenkov and Glas Nadezhda EOOD. The unjustified denial of a radio broadcasting licence, followed by the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the substance of the applicants' grievances, must have caused non-pecuniary damage to both applicants. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards them jointly EUR 5,000, plus any value-added or other tax that may be chargeable.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Costs and expenses</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">76. The applicants sought the reimbursement of EUR 3,600 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They submitted a fees agreement between them and their representative and a time-sheet.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">77. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">78. According to the Court's case-law, applicants are entitled to reimbursement of their costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 2,500, plus any value-added or other tax that may be chargeable.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. Default interest</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">79. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">1. Declares the application admissible;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">3. Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 9 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 10;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">5. Holds</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(ii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 October 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Claudia WESTERDIEK Peer LORENZEN <span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Registrar President</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ELENKOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT</div><div><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-83043543692207021672010-12-27T16:49:00.002+01:002010-12-27T16:49:47.560+01:00CASE OF IVANOVA v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-5)<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FIFTH SECTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>CASE OF IVANOVA v. BULGARIA</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Application no. 52435/99)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 18.0px;">JUDGMENT</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 18.0px;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 18.0px;">12 April 2007</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">FINAL</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">12/07/2007</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Ivanova v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Mr P. LORENZEN, President, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr K. JUNGWIERT, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr R. MARUSTE, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr M. VILLIGER, judges, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>and Mrs C. WESTERDIEK, Section Registrar,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2007,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in an application (no. 52435/99) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Ms Kalinka Todorova Ivanova, who was born in 1950 and lives in Ruse (“the applicant”), on 27 May 1999.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. The applicant was represented by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Dimova and Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. The applicant alleged that her right to freedom of religion had been violated because her employment had been terminated on account of her religious beliefs (Article 9), which had amounted to discrimination on religious grounds (Article 14, in conjunction with Article 9).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. By a decision of 14 February 2006 the Court declared the application partly admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. The parties did not submit further written observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE FACTS</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Background information</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. General background</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. In February 1994 the Persons and Family Act was amended to require the registration with the Council of Ministers of non-profit organisations which had religious or related activities. Seventy-eight requests for registration were submitted, but only twenty-three organisations were registered. Those turned down were primarily Protestant groups.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">8. Denial of legal status made it impossible for those organisations to hire public lecture halls or sign contracts in the name of the organisation. The unregistered organisations were unable to open bank accounts or publish journals or newspapers in the name of the organisation and were denied certain tax advantages.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">9. Among the organisations whose registration was turned down was “Word of Life”, a Christian Evangelical group that had become active in Bulgaria in the early 1990s.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Word of Life</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">10. As a result of the authorities' refusal to register Word of Life, the religious organisation began clandestine activities. Meetings were periodically thwarted by the police followed by media propaganda against the organisation and its members.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">11. On 20 June 1994, acting on an order from the Sofia's Prosecutor's Office, the police closed a hall used by Word of Life in Sofia and prevented members from using it.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">12. On 22 June 1994 a Swedish citizen was expelled from Bulgaria because of his participation in a Word of Life course (see Lilja v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41574/98, 20 November 2003).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">13. On 23 June 1994 a force of around thirty policemen prevented members of Word of Life from attending a meeting at a hall, because it had purportedly been cancelled.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">14. On 23 February 1995 the police raided private homes in the town of Veliko Turnovo and a conference hall in the Hotel Etur. They confiscated religious literature, audio tapes and video cassettes, which they displayed at a press conference the next day. No charges were subsequently brought against any members of Word of Life.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">15. On 20 July and 27 September 1995 the police raided two gatherings of Word of Life followers in private homes. Religious literature was confiscated and the hosts were required to declare in writing that they would no longer organise religious gatherings in their homes.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. The River Shipbuilding and Navigation School in Ruse</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">16. Throughout 1994 and 1995 the local Ruse media reported regularly on “unlawful” gatherings and religious activities by Word of Life followers. The media campaign intensified, with the national press joining in, during the summer and autumn of 1995. Press coverage was focused on the River Shipbuilding and Navigation School (Техникум по речно корабостроене и корабоплаване – “the School”) in Ruse because several of the non-academic staff were allegedly followers of Word of Life. The media also waged a personal campaign against some of those individuals by naming and condemning them as followers of the religious organisation. It called for their dismissal and named the applicant as one of the individuals whose employment should be terminated (see, for example, paragraph 22 below).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">17. As a direct result, the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the National Security Service initiated inquiries into the religious activities of the School's staff members.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">18. On 18 September 1995 the Regional Prosecutor's Office, in summarising the findings of the National Security Service, found that there were insufficient grounds for opening a preliminary investigation. At the same time it stated that, inter alia, the activities at the School were “not free of criminal culpability”, and that they were in contravention of the Religious Denominations Act and “probably” the relevant education Acts and regulations. Moreover, the allegedly “unlawful” religious activities were considered to have been carried out with the tacit approval of its principal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">19. Soon thereafter, the Regional Governor (областният управител) and a local member of parliament (“the MP”) called for radical measures to be taken to curb the alleged religious activities at the School and to dismiss the principal. They made public threats that, if such measures were not taken, they would petition the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (“the Ministry”) to dismiss the Chief Educational Inspector for Ruse (“the Educational Inspector”).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">20. On 23 October 1995 the principal of the School was dismissed by the Ministry. The dismissal order directly referred to the negative media coverage and the findings of the Regional Prosecutor's Office and accused her of tolerating the activities of Word of Life at the School to the detriment of its staff and pupils. It also suggested that the principal should have dismissed those members of staff who were Word of Life followers. It is unclear whether the principal appealed against her dismissal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">21. A new principal was appointed soon thereafter.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">22. In a broadcast on the Hristo Botev radio station, aired on 7 December 1995, the MP stressed that there were still members of Word of Life working in the School, such as the swimming pool manager (the post occupied by the applicant), and inferred from this that the Ministry had not conclusively resolved the matter with the dismissal of the former principal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The applicant's career at the School</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">23. The applicant was a mechanical engineer and had a second university degree in pedagogical sciences. She had been involved in the religious activities of Word of Life since 1994.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">24. On 14 October 1994 the applicant was appointed by the School to the post of “mechanic” at its swimming pool on a temporary employment contract until 23 February 1995.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">25. On an unspecified date, the Ministry approved a new roster of posts (щатно разписание) for the School effective as of 1 January 1995, which provided for the post of “swimming pool manager” with a requirement for the holder of the post to have completed a course of secondary education. By a further amendment of 1 April 1995 the holder of the post was required to have a higher-education qualification.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">26. On 6 April 1995 the applicant was promoted to the post of “swimming pool manager” and concluded a temporary employment contract with a term up to 31 August 1995.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">27. On 31 August 1995 the applicant's temporary employment contract was extended until 31 August 1996.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">28. On 20 September 1995 the applicant concluded an employment contract of indefinite duration, which provided for her appointment to the post of “swimming pool manager” as of 1 July 1995. Her job description indicated that her responsibilities included, inter alia, managing and supervising the staff of the swimming pool, organising their work schedules, monitoring the regular accounting of the proceeds from the swimming pool and organising the swimming lessons. The job description did not expressly refer to any education or professional qualification requirements for the post. The applicant's basic salary was set at 4,992 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 111 Deutsche marks (DEM)) with a 16% bonus for length of service.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">29. On an unspecified date the Ministry approved a new roster of posts for the School effective as of 1 October 1995. It provided for the post of “swimming pool manager” with a requirement that the holder of the post have a higher-education qualification.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. The applicant's dismissal from the School</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">30. On 23 October 1995 the principal of the School was dismissed and a new one was appointed soon thereafter.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">31. On 2 November 1995 the applicant was summoned to a meeting with the Educational Inspector and his deputy. Another member of staff, Mrs M., was also summoned to the meeting, which took place on the premises of the School. At the meeting, the inspectors asked for their resignations as a means of easing public tensions. The applicant contended, although this was disputed by the Government, that the inspectors had threatened them that if they did not resign of their own accord or did not renounce their faith, they would be dismissed on disciplinary grounds. The inspectors claimed that irrespective of their work performance they “could instruct the [new] principal” to dismiss them. Mrs M. denied being a member of Word of Life, while the applicant did not and also refused to resign. No assessment or mention was made during the meeting as to whether the applicant was performing her job well and whether she met the requirements for holding her post.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">32. On 3 November 1995 the applicant informed the new principal of the School in writing of her meeting of the previous day with the Educational Inspector and his deputy. No action was taken in response.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">33. Thereafter, the new principal alienated the applicant – her office phone was removed, the locks to the swimming pool were changed without her being provided with a set of keys and the supervision of the renovation of the swimming pool was entrusted to a subordinate even though it should allegedly have been her responsibility. The new principal also made enquiries as to the applicant's work performance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">34. On 24 November 1995 the human resources department of the School prepared a list of thirty-one employees allegedly without job descriptions. The applicant's name and post were among them.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">35. On 7 December 1995 Hristo Botev radio aired the interview with the MP in which he implied that the applicant's post was one of those still being occupied by a member of Word of Life (see paragraph 22 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">36. By an order of 28 December 1995 the applicant was dismissed, with immediate effect, on the grounds of not meeting the education and professional qualification requirements for the post of “swimming pool manager” (Article 328 § 1 (6) of the Labour Code). When she was served with the order, the applicant enquired as to which requirements she did not meet, but the new principal did not inform her.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">D. The proceedings against the dismissal</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Proceedings before the Ruse District Court</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">37. On 27 May 1996 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Ruse District Court challenging the lawfulness of the dismissal. She also sought reinstatement in her previous post and compensation for loss of income.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">38. The applicant maintained that her dismissal was directly related to her religious beliefs and her refusal to resign of her own accord. Such a reason for terminating her employment contract, she argued, was a violation of Article 8 § 3 of the Labour Code and Article 37 of the Bulgarian Constitution, which prohibited religious discrimination.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">39. During the trial it was established that in December 1995 there had been a further amendment to the School's roster of posts, which the Ministry had approved in a letter of 30 January 1996, but with effect from 1 January 1996. The amended roster of posts no longer envisaged the post of “swimming pool manager”, but provided for the post of “sports complex organiser”. On an unspecified date a job description had also been prepared for the new post which set out the requirements for the holder of the post as follows: “university degree in sports, university degree in economics, as an exception – secondary education with specialisation in the relevant sport, qualified lifeguard, certified swimming instructor.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">40. The applicant argued before the Ruse District Court that the changes to the School's roster of posts should have taken place in accordance with standard practices and should not have been arbitrary. She claimed that the standard practice was to make changes to the roster of posts before the beginning of the academic year. The applicant also claimed that the changes were arbitrary because there had not been any objective necessity, stemming from the work being performed, to change the requirements for the post.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">41. A hearing was held on 9 July 1996 at which the respondent party presented the new job description for the post of “sports complex organiser”.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">42. At a hearing on 19 November 1996 several witnesses gave evidence. The Educational Inspector testified that the standard practice was to make changes to the roster of posts before the academic year unless an urgent need, usually of a financial nature, required otherwise. He confirmed that he had met with the applicant in early November 1995 in connection with the findings of the Regional Prosecutor's Office and that he had invited her to resign in view of the mounting discontent and public opinion. He stated that he had not enquired as to the activities of Word of Life at the School and that he was not familiar with the applicant's work performance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">43. Mrs M. also testified and informed the court that the new principal had threatened her with dismissal if she talked about her work at the School. She testified as to the meeting of 2 November 1995 with the Educational Inspector and stated that, faced with the claim of being a follower of Word of Life, she had denied it. She stated that she had broken down and cried during the meeting because she had two children to support and did not want to be left without a job. Mrs M. also informed the court that, as far as she was aware, the applicant had been a good and diligent employee, who had maintained good relations with the other members of staff.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">44. A teacher from the School also testified at the hearing. He informed the court that since its construction in 1974 the swimming pool had always had a manager, but that there had never been a requirement of a university degree in sports for the post. The teacher also testified as to the content of the radio broadcast of 7 December 1995, in which the applicant had been singled out for dismissal by the MP.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">45. On 25 November 1996 the applicant filed her written submissions with the Ruse District Court, contending that the evidence in the case supported her claim. She maintained that the School's roster of posts had been changed in the middle of the academic year with the sole aim of introducing such requirements for her post as to allow her dismissal on those grounds.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">46. On 5 May 1997 the Ruse District Court dismissed the applicant's claims. In its judgment the court noted that the burden of proof as to whether the dismissal had been lawful or not lay with the School. It found, inter alia, that the School had complied with the procedure for changing the roster of posts and that the new job description for the post was in conformity with the standard job descriptions for such posts as approved by the Ministry. In addition, the court found that with the changes to the requirements for the post the School had envisaged the possibility that the person appointed to the job would not only manage and organise the activities of the swimming pool but could also act as a lifeguard or swimming instructor, a factor which the court deemed to be of “vital importance”. Based on these considerations, the court found that “there really had been preconditions [which entailed] changing the requirements for the post” and that the dismissal was therefore lawful. Separately, the Ruse District Court found that the applicant's claims that her dismissal had been motivated by her religious beliefs were not supported by the evidence in the case, that in fact the applicant had had very good relations with the other members of staff and that there were no complaints as to her work performance. The court also reasoned that the applicant's assertions in this respect were refuted by the fact that Mrs M. was still employed by the School.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Proceedings before the Ruse Regional Court</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">47. On 27 June 1997 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Ruse District Court. She claimed, inter alia, that its findings were not based on the evidence established in the case and were therefore unfounded. She claimed that the Ruse District Court had failed to make a proper assessment of key evidence, such as the testimonies of the Educational Inspector and Mrs M.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">48. The applicant also questioned the grounds of the first-instance court for dismissing her claim and contended that they were frivolous and at odds with the substance of her complaint alleging religious discrimination. Firstly, she had never claimed that her personal relations with her colleagues had suffered as a result of her religious beliefs. Secondly, she submitted that the first-instance court's reasoning that there had been no discrimination against her, considering that Mrs M. was still employed by the School, was incorrect as there were various possible reasons for Mrs M.'s continued employment, such as the fact that the media had not singled her out for dismissal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">49. The applicant also claimed that the Ruse District Court had never analysed in substance her complaint alleging religious discrimination, but had dealt with the matter purely as an issue of unfair dismissal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">50. Finally, she maintained that the facts of the case clearly showed that following her refusal to resign on 2 November 1995 the School had simply tried to find a legal ground for dismissing her and that the chosen method was to change the requirements for the post she occupied so that she would become ineligible to hold it.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">51. On 22 July 1997 the former principal of the School filed submissions with the Ruse Regional Court, attesting to a conversation she had had in June 1995 with the Educational Inspector. At the meeting he had identified four employees in respect of whom there had been “information that they were members of a sect” and whose employment he had insisted be terminated. At the time, the former principal had suggested that those employees resign of their own accord, but they had refused and no further action had been taken against them. It is unclear whether the applicant was one of those employees.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">52. In a judgment of 23 July 1997 the Ruse Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court found, inter alia, that the School had both a need and the right to change the roster of posts and the requirements for the applicant's post and to dismiss her because she did not meet those requirements. It also found that the Ruse District Court had adequately addressed the applicant's allegations of religious discrimination and found them to be “totally and irrefutably ... irrelevant” based on the fact that she had maintained good relations with her colleagues and had been a good employee. Any allegations of subjective reasons or discriminatory grounds for her dismissal were therefore considered unfounded.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. Proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">53. On 18 September 1997 the applicant filed a petition for review (cassation appeal), claiming, inter alia, that the lower courts had failed to properly evaluate the evidence before them and had never addressed the substance of her complaint alleging religious discrimination. She maintained that they had failed to assess the circumstances surrounding her dismissal and especially the events leading up to it, which clearly demonstrated the real reason why this legal method had been used to terminate her employment.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">54. A hearing was conducted on 16 November 1998, which the applicant and her counsel, though duly summoned, did not attend. They presented their submissions to the court in writing.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">55. In a final judgment of 9 December 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court found, inter alia, that the applicant's arguments were unsubstantiated, and upheld the findings of the lower courts. It stressed that the School had the right to change the requirements for the post and that such changes were not subject to judicial review. In addition, it compared the duties and responsibilities of the posts of “swimming pool manager” and “sports complex organiser” and found them to be essentially the same. The Supreme Court of Cassation also noted that the old job description had lacked any education or professional qualification requirements for the post, while the new one had included such requirements. It reasoned, therefore, that the employer had simply filled a gap that had previously existed in that respect.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">56. The court refused to address the remainder of the arguments of the applicant as it found them to be irrelevant to the proceedings and to the issue of the dismissal.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Freedom of religion</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">57. The relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution read as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 13</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“(1) Religions shall be free.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 37</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“(1) The freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and the choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The State shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations, and between believers and non-believers.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">(2) The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">58. The relevant provisions of the Religious Denominations Act 1949 read as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Section 1</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“All citizens in the Republic of Bulgaria shall be afforded the freedom of conscience and religion.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Section 4</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“No one shall be persecuted or restricted in his civil and political rights, nor be dismissed from the performance of duties entrusted to him by law, on account of belonging to one or another religious denomination or for not associating with any one religious denomination...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Protection against discrimination</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">59. The Bulgarian Constitution (Article 38), the Education Act of 1991 (section 4) and the Labour Code (Article 8 § 3) provide for protection against discrimination grounded on, inter alia, religious beliefs.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">60. An amendment of Article 8 § 3 of the Labour Code of 31 March 2001 widened the scope of protection against discrimination in the workplace to include “indirect discrimination”, which was defined in item 7 of § 1 of the Supplementary Provisions to the Labour Code as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“'Indirect' [refers to] the discrimination whereby ostensibly legal solutions are used in exercising labour rights and duties, but they are applied, in the light of the criteria under Article 8 § 3 [of the Labour Code], in a manner which in reality and in fact places some workers and employees in [a] less favourable or privileged position compared to others. Discrimination [does not exist where] the differences or the preferences [are] based on the qualification requirements for performing a specific job, or where special protection is given to certain [types of] workers and employees (juveniles, pregnant women and mothers of young children, disabled people, those with reduced working capacity and other similar groups), as established by normative acts.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">61. The above definition was repealed on 1 January 2004 with the entry into force of the Protection Against Discrimination Act, which provides a comprehensive framework for protection against discrimination. Section 4(3) of the Act introduced the following new definition of “indirect discrimination”:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“Indirect discrimination is placing a person on the basis of the criteria in section 1 [sex, race, nationality, ethnicity..., religion and belief...] in a less favourable position in comparison to other persons by way of an ostensibly neutral provision, criterion or practice, unless the said provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified in view of a statutory aim and the means of attaining the said aim are appropriate and necessary.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. Termination of employment contract</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">62. An employer may terminate a contract of employment by giving notice in writing to an employee where he or she does not have the necessary education or vocational training for performing the work assigned (Article 328 § 1 (6) of the Labour Code).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">63. In reviewing such terminations the domestic courts have as their established practice that for a dismissal to be lawful (under Article 328 § 1 (6) of the Labour Code) it is sufficient for the courts to establish that there were new requirements in terms of education or vocational training for performing the assigned work which the employee no longer met, without their being required to assess the necessity for introducing such requirements (see, for example, решение на ВС № 77 от 22.ІІ.1995 г. по гр. д. № 1062 от 1994 г., ІІІ г. о.).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">D. The secular nature of the system of education</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">64. Section 5 of the Education Act (1991) proclaims the system of education to be secular.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. REPORTS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS IN THE COUNTRY DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Country Reports of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">65. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (“ECRI”), in its three reports on Bulgaria for the years 1997–1999, found that during the period there had been a high degree of intolerance in the media towards minority religious groups, particularly new religions. It also found the authorities to be somewhat passive in the face of acts of intolerance, which were not sufficiently combated or punished.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">66. ECRI also reported that there had been religious discrimination in the field of education and that there had been cases of dismissal in the public sector for religious beliefs.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Reports by NGOs</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">67. Human Rights Watch and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, in their annual reports for the years 1994–1996, noted that violations of religious freedoms in Bulgaria had significantly increased over the period, especially with regard to what had been referred to as “non-traditional” religious denominations. They observed that the authorities had sought to impose restrictions on thought and religion and to restrict religious diversity, for example by introducing a requirement that non-profit organisations which pursued religious or related activities or dispensed religious education must first obtain the approval of the Council of Ministers before they registered as such.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">68. The NGOs also reported that there had been cases of dismissal in the public sector for religious beliefs and mentioned specific instances involving followers of Word of Life.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">69. The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention that she had been dismissed from her job because of her religious beliefs and that this had constituted a violation of her right to freedom of religion.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Article 9 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties' submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">70. The Government contended that the applicant's complaint was unfounded and unsubstantiated as it was grounded on assertions, which were not supported by tangible evidence.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">71. The Government questioned the reliance on various media and other reports in substantiating the applicant's complaints and considered them immaterial to the case. Nevertheless, in respect of the media campaigns, the Government contended that they did not infringe on the applicant's right to freedom of religion. To the contrary, they considered them a legitimate exercise of the media's right of freedom of expression, in so far as they were expressing the reservations of the public towards members of a religious organisation allegedly proselytising among the pupils of the School with the tacit support or approval of the institution's former principal. In any event, the Government considered that the media's singling out of the applicant had not, in itself, infringed her right to freedom of religion.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">72. In respect of the investigations of the Prosecutor's Office into the activities of Word of Life, the Government argued that they had been justified and that they had simply been in response to the community's suspicions of its members' activities at the School. Moreover, they submitted that the investigations had been initiated in response to credible information that the School's premises were being used for religious activities in apparent violation of the secular nature of the institution. Thus, the Government contended that these investigations could not be considered, in themselves, an infringement of the applicant's right to freedom of religion.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">73. In respect of the termination of the applicant's employment, the Government argued that it had not been grounded on her religious beliefs or activities. They submitted that it was simply the result of the elimination of certain deficiencies in the administration of the School in order to provide all employees with complete job descriptions and, in the case of the applicant, to lay down justified education and professional qualification requirements for her post. The Government further noted that her dismissal had been based on the applicable legislation, which provided for termination of an employment agreement if the requirements for a post changed and the employee holding it no longer met those requirements.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">74. Separately, the Government submitted that any limitations imposed on the applicant's right to manifest her religion within the confines of the School had been justified. They referred to the secular nature of the system of education in Bulgaria and submitted that this principle applied both to the teaching activities of the School and to its premises, contending that this was a justified limitation of the right to manifest one's religion. They pointed out in this connection that one of the grounds for dismissing the School's former principal had been her failure to maintain the secular nature of the institution by allegedly allowing proselytising on the premises by Word of Life, but argued that that had had no direct relevance or effect on the applicant.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">75. In her submissions in reply, the applicant referred to the sequence of events leading up to her dismissal and considered them clearly indicative of the real reason for her dismissal. In addition, she argued that the new principal of the School had been aware of the reasons for the dismissal of her predecessor. Considering her good working relationship with her colleagues and her satisfactory work performance, the applicant argued that it had not been possible to dismiss her on grounds directly relating to her work. Accordingly, the applicant asserted that in order to effect the desired dismissal, the new principal had settled on the unusual method of changing the roster of posts and the requirements for her post. The use of this legal technique, she contended, had not, however, changed the real reason for her dismissal, namely her religious beliefs.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">76. Lastly, the applicant noted that the standard of proof required under Article 9 of the Convention was proof beyond reasonable doubt, but observed that the Court had previously stated that “such proof may follow from the co-existence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of facts” (she cited Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 111, ECHR 2002-IV). The applicant submitted that, considered in its entirety, the evidence in her case clearly met the requisite burden of proof and established beyond reasonable doubt that the substantive reason for her dismissal had been her religious beliefs.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. General principles</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">77. The Court reiterates that, as enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 17, § 31).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">78. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to “manifest [one's] religion”. According to Article 9 of the Convention, freedom to manifest one's religion is not only exercisable in community with others, “in public” and within the circle of those whose faith one shares, but can also be asserted “alone” and “in private”; furthermore, it includes in principle the right to try to convince one's neighbour, for example through “teaching”, failing which, moreover, “freedom to change [one's] religion or belief”, enshrined in the said Article, would be likely to remain a dead letter (ibid.).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">79. The fundamental nature of the rights guaranteed in Article 9 § 1 of the Convention is also reflected in the wording of the paragraph providing for limitations on them. Unlike the second paragraphs of Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention, which cover all the rights mentioned in the first paragraphs of those Articles, that of Article 9 of the Convention refers only to “freedom to manifest one's religion or belief”. In so doing, it recognises that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary to place restrictions on this freedom in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone's beliefs are respected (see Kokkinakis, cited above, p. 18, § 33). At the same time, it emphasises the primary importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the fact that a State cannot dictate what a person believes or take coercive steps to make him change his beliefs.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">80. In the context of complaints under Article 9 of the Convention for dismissal from service, the Commission stated on several occasions that pressuring an individual to change his religious beliefs or preventing him from manifesting them would be an interference at variance with the said Article (see Knudsen v. Norway, no. 11045/84, Commission decision of 8 March 1985, Decisions and Reports 42, pp. 247-58, at p. 258, and Konttinen v. Finland, no. 24949/94, Commission decision of 3 December 1996, unreported). The Court has come to a similar conclusion in the context of a teacher's complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that she was dismissed from service on account of her political allegiance (see, mutatis mutandis, Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 23 and 31, §§ 44 and 65).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. Application of these principles to the present case</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">81. The Court considers that the issue at the heart of the present case is whether the applicant's employment was terminated solely as a result of the School's justified need to change the requirements for her post, as the Government claimed, or whether, as the applicant argued, she was dismissed because of her religious beliefs.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">82. The Court notes that the Government made lengthy submissions on the secular nature of the system of education and the need to preserve it as such (see paragraphs 70-74 above). They referred to certain alleged instances of proselytising at the School by members of staff, from which they attempted to infer (a) that the authorities had legitimate fears that unlawful activities were occurring, (b) that the applicant, as a follower of Word of Life, was probably involved in them, and (c) that the authorities had a justified aim of stopping the alleged proselytising. However, the Government did not provide any evidence that there had ever been any credible accusations that the applicant had proselytised at the School. The Government's submissions on this point are somewhat ambiguous and contradictory, because despite the lengthy arguments submitted in respect of the applicant's alleged involvement in proselytising at the School, they explicitly claimed that the termination of her employment had had nothing whatsoever to do with her religious beliefs (see paragraph 73 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">83. On the contrary, by assessing the facts in the case and considering the sequence of events in their entirety, rather than as separate and distinct incidents, the Court finds evidence of a causal link between the various events which resulted in the applicant's dismissal. In particular, as a result of the ongoing campaigns in the media (see paragraph 16 above), the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the National Security Service initiated inquiries into the religious activities of the School's staff members (see paragraph 17 above). This resulted in a report of 18 September 1995 by the Regional Prosecutor's Office, which stated, inter alia, that “unlawful” religious activities were allegedly being carried out at the School with the tacit approval of its principal (see paragraph 18 above). On 20 September 1995 the applicant's employment contract was changed from a fixed-term contract to one of indefinite duration (see paragraph 28 above). A new roster of posts for the School was introduced as of 1 October 1995, which required the holder of the applicant's post to have a higher-education qualification but without specifying any particular type of degree (see paragraph 29 above). The Educational Inspector was threatened with dismissal by the Regional Governor and the MP unless he took radical measures to curb the religious activities at the School and dismiss the principal (see paragraph 19 above). On 23 October 1995 the principal of the School was dismissed by the Ministry for, inter alia, tolerating the activities of Word of Life at the School and for not having dismissed those members of staff who were followers of the organisation (see paragraph 20 above). A new principal was appointed soon afterwards (see paragraph 21 above). At the meeting on 2 November 1995 with the Educational Inspector and his deputy, the applicant and Mrs M. were asked to resign or renounce their faith, otherwise the inspectors would “instruct the [new] principal” to dismiss them irrespective of their work performance (see paragraphs 31 and 42-43 above). Mrs M., faced with being unable to support her two children if she were dismissed, denied being a member of Word of Life and there were apparently no subsequent repercussions for her (see paragraphs 43 and 46, last sentence, above). The applicant meanwhile refused to resign or renounce her faith, which led to her being alienated by the new principal (see paragraphs 31 and 33 above). Enquiries were also made as to her work performance, which appears to have been satisfactory (see paragraphs 33, 43, 46 and 52 above). In a radio interview on 7 December 1995 the MP singled out the applicant's post as still being occupied by a member of Word of Life (see paragraphs 22 and 44 above). The applicant was dismissed in an order of 28 December 1995 on the ground of not meeting the requirements for the post to which she had been promoted more than eight months previously and which featured on a roster of posts approved by the Ministry (see paragraphs 25-29 and 36 above). Finally, a new roster of posts for the School was approved by the Ministry on 30 January 1996, effective as of 1 January 1996, which transformed the applicant's post into the new post of “sports complex organiser” with a requirement that its holder have a “university degree in sports, university degree in economics, as an exception – secondary education with specialisation in the relevant sport, qualified lifeguard, certified swimming instructor” (see paragraph 39 above). It should be noted, however, that since the construction of the School's swimming pool in 1974 there had never been a requirement for its manager to have a university degree in sports (see paragraph 44 above). In addition, when the Supreme Court of Cassation compared the duties and responsibilities of the posts of “swimming pool manager” and “sports complex organiser”, it found them to be essentially the same (see paragraph 55 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">84. Considering the above facts and the sequence of events, the Court finds that the termination of the applicant's employment was not simply the result of a justified amendment of the requirements for her post, but in fact took place on account of her religious beliefs and affiliation with Word of Life, thus constituting an interference with her right to freedom of religion at variance with Article 9 of the Convention. The fact that the applicant's employment was terminated in accordance with the applicable labour legislation – by introducing new requirements for her post which she did not meet – fails to eliminate the substantive motive for her dismissal. Most telling in this respect is the meeting of 2 November 1995 at which the applicant was pressured by two Government officials to renounce her religious beliefs in order to keep her job (see paragraphs 31 and 42-43 above), which the Court considers a flagrant violation of her right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 9 of the Convention (see the general principles and case-law references in paragraphs 77-80 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">85. In respect of the State's responsibility, the Court considers it to be engaged by the fact that the applicant was employed as a non-academic staff member at the School, which was under the direct supervision of the Ministry. Moreover, it notes the ongoing activities in breaking up gatherings of Word of Life around the country, the involvement of other authorities and officials such as the Regional Prosecutor's Office, the National Security Service, the MP and the Educational Inspector, and the resulting disciplinary dismissal of the former principal because of her alleged tacit approval of religious activities in the School. These events hint at a policy of intolerance by the authorities during the relevant period towards Word of Life, its activities and followers in Ruse, and at the School in particular. The dismissal of the applicant soon after the appointment of the new principal appears, therefore, to have resulted directly from the implementation of that policy.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">86. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant's right to freedom of religion was violated because her employment had been terminated on account of her religious beliefs. There has therefore been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention on that account.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">87. The applicant complained under Article 14, in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention, that her dismissal from the School had been inconsistent with the requirement of non-discrimination set forth in the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Article 14 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">88. The Government contended that the applicant's complaint was unfounded and completely unsubstantiated. They noted that the applicant had had a very good working relationship with the other employees at the School and that she had not had any criticism of her work, a fact which they considered could not be reconciled with her complaint of discrimination. The Government reiterated their argument that the applicant's dismissal was the result of the elimination of certain deficiencies in the administration of the School.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">89. The Government also claimed that of the four persons named by the media as members of Word of Life working at the School, only the applicant's employment had been terminated. They argued that this lack of any repercussions for the other alleged members of Word of Life indicated that there had not been a concerted effort or intent by the authorities to terminate their employment.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">90. Separately, the Government submitted that in the years preceding the applicant's dismissal more than twenty other employees had been dismissed and inferred that the termination of her employment should be considered within the context of ongoing redundancies at the institution. They also found it inappropriate and discriminatory against other employees to be required to grant special protection to religious employees faced with termination of their employment.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">91. In her submissions in reply, the applicant reiterated her complaint. She did not submit separate observations on her complaint of discrimination on religious grounds, other than those provided in the context of Article 9 of the Convention, which she considered equally relevant. However, in her submissions under Article 9 of the Convention the applicant stated that by the time of her meeting on 2 November 1995 with the Educational Inspector, the other members of Word of Life employed at the School, with the exception of Mrs M., had already left the institution of their own accord for personal reasons or as a result of the negative publicity.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">92. The Court notes that the applicant's complaint relating to Article 14 of the Convention amounts to a repetition of her complaints under Article 9 of the Convention. Accordingly, it considers that there is no cause to examine it separately (see, mutatis mutandis, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 134, ECHR 2001-XII).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">93. Article 41 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 28.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.0px;">“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Damage</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">94. The applicant claimed 590 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage in compensation for the loss of earnings resulting from her dismissal from the School. Her claim was based on the domestic statutory provisions, which provided that an unlawfully dismissed employee was entitled to compensation for the period in which he or she remained unemployed, but for no more than six months. The applicant stated that she had remained unemployed for more than six months after her dismissal and was therefore making a claim for the full six-month compensation for loss of earnings. The last salary she claimed to have received from the School had been in the amount of 6,043.52 old Bulgarian levs, which the applicant stated to have been equivalent to approximately DEM 120 or EUR 60. Thus, she calculated the six-month compensation claimed for loss of earnings to be approximately equivalent to DEM 622.80 or EUR 311.40. The applicant also claimed interest at a rate of 6% per annum for the period May 1996 to May 2006, which, together with the compensation claimed, made a total of EUR 589.23.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">95. The applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the emotional pain and suffering caused by the violation of her rights under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. She stressed that as a result of the actions of the School's authorities she had been discriminated against on the basis of her religious beliefs and that the domestic courts had failed to provide redress for her complaints. In addition, the applicant claimed that, on account of the accompanying media campaigns during the period, she had also suffered significant public prejudice. Accordingly, she had been unable to find employment for a considerable length of time and had had to start work as a self-employed trader at an open-air market. Lastly, the applicant argued that the domestic courts' refusal to examine in substance her discrimination complaint had further contributed to her feeling of distress and helplessness, and had increased her emotional suffering.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">96. The Government did not submit any comments on the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">97. The Court has found that the authorities were responsible for violating the applicant's right to freedom of religion because her employment was terminated on account of her religious beliefs (see paragraph 86 above). Following her dismissal she remained without employment for more than six months. Thus, there is a direct causal link between the established violation of the Convention and the applicant's loss of earnings. In respect of the amount of compensation claimed, the Court notes that the Government challenged neither its basis nor the applicant's calculations in respect of the amounts due. Accordingly, the Court awards the amount of EUR 589.23.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">98. In respect of the non-pecuniary damage claimed, the Court considers it reasonable to accept that as a result of the violation of the applicant's right under Article 9 of the Convention she suffered a certain degree of emotional pain and suffering, possibly even public prejudice. As with her claim for pecuniary damage, the Government challenged neither the grounds nor the amount of the compensation sought by the applicant. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 4,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage arising out of the violation of her right under Article 9 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Costs and expenses</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">99. The applicant claimed EUR 500 for the legal work by her lawyer before the domestic courts. She also sought EUR 3,290 for 47 hours of legal work by her lawyer before the Court, at the hourly rate of EUR 70. She submitted a legal fees agreement with her lawyer and a timesheet for the work relating to the proceedings before the Court. The applicant requested that the costs and expenses incurred should be paid directly to her lawyer, Mr Y. Grozev.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">100. The Government did not submit any comments on the applicant's claims for costs and expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">101. The Court reiterates that according to its case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his or her costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. Noting the particular complexity of the case, both before the domestic courts and the Court, the associated submissions of the applicant's lawyer and the other relevant factors, and the fact that the applicant was paid EUR 701 in legal aid by the Council of Europe, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 38.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. Default interest</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">102. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">2. Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">3. Holds</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(i) EUR 589.23 (five hundred and eighty-nine euros and twenty-three cents) in respect of pecuniary damage;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(ii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(iii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, payable into the bank account of the applicant's lawyer in Bulgaria, Mr Y. Grozev;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 52.0px; text-align: justify;">(iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Claudia WESTERDIEK Peer LORENZEN <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Registrar President</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">IVANOVA v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT</div><div><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-22956906171628468242010-12-27T16:45:00.000+01:002010-12-27T16:45:33.558+01:00SUPREME HOLY COUNCIL OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-4)<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FORMER FIRST SECTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>CASE OF SUPREME HOLY COUNCIL OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY v. BULGARIA</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Application no. 39023/97)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">JUDGMENT</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">16 December 2004</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">FINAL</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">16/03/2005</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (Former First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr P. LORENZEN, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs F. TULKENS, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs N. VAJIĆ, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr A. KOVLER, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, judges, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>and Mr S. NIELSEN, Section Registrar,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 9 September, 28 October and 25 November 2004,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in an application (no. 39023/97) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged on 9 September 1997 with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on behalf of the Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community (“the applicant organisation”), which was at the relevant time one of the rival factions claiming leadership of the Muslim community in Bulgaria.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. The applicant was represented by Mrs S. Margaritova-Vutchkova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. The applicant organisation alleged, in particular, that it had been the victim of arbitrary and discriminatory State interference in the organisation of the Muslim community in Bulgaria, that it did not have an effective remedy in this respect and that the requirements of impartiality and fairness had been breached in the ensuing judicial proceedings.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. By a partial decision of 13 December 2001 and a final decision of 8 July 2003, the Court declared the application partly admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE FACTS</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. The applicant, the Supreme Holy Council <span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">(Висш духовен съвет)</span> of the Muslim Community, headed by Mr Nedim Gendzhev, was the officially recognised leadership of Muslims in Bulgaria, at least between 1995 and 1997. In reality, at the relevant time it was one of the two rival Muslim religious leaderships in Bulgaria. Mr Nedim Gendzhev, a Bulgarian citizen born in 1945 and residing in Sofia, was its leader. He was the Chief Mufti at least between 1988 and 1992 and the President of the Supreme Holy Council at least between 1995 and 1997.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The relevant background: changes of leadership of the Muslim community before 1997</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. The removal of Mr Gendzhev in 1992</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">8. At the end of 1989 a process of democratisation commenced in Bulgaria. Soon thereafter some Muslim believers and activists of the Muslim religion in the country sought to replace the leadership of their religious organisation. They considered that Mr Gendzhev, who was the Chief Mufti at that time, and the members of the Supreme Holy Council had collaborated with the communist regime. The old leadership, with Mr Gendzhev as Chief Mufti of Bulgarian Muslims, also had supporters. This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Muslim community in Bulgaria.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">9. At the end of 1991 a new Government, formed by the Union of Democratic Forces (Съюз на демократичните сили – “the SDS”) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (Движение за права и свободи – “the DPS”), took office.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">10. On 10 February 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations (Дирекция по вероизповеданията - “the Directorate”), a governmental agency attached to the Council of Ministers, declared the election of Mr Gendzhev in 1988 as Chief Mufti of the Muslims in Bulgaria null and void and proclaimed his removal from that position. This decision was based on findings, inter alia, that Mr Gendzhev’s election in 1988 had been politically motivated.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">11. The Directorate appointed a three-member interim governing body of the Muslims’ religious organisation, considering that that was “the only possible means of preventing the organisational disintegration of the Muslim denomination”.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">12. A national conference of Muslims, organised by the interim leadership, took place on 19 September 1992. It elected Mr Fikri Sali Hasan as Chief Mufti and also approved a new statute, which was registered in accordance with sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act. After September 1992 the supporters of Mr Hasan obtained full control over the property and activities of the Muslim community.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">13. Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained the Chief Mufti, challenged the decision of 10 February 1992 before the Supreme Court. The proceedings ended with a final judgment of 7 April 1993. The Supreme Court, while considering that the impugned decision was not amenable to judicial review, nevertheless commented that the Directorate’s decision to declare Mr Gendzhev’s election null and void had been within its competence. In so far as the impugned decision had also proclaimed “the removal” of Mr Gendzhev from his position of Chief Mufti, this had been ultra vires. However, it was unnecessary to annul this part of the Directorate’s decision as in any event it had no legal consequences.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. The reinstatement of Mr Gendzhev in 1995</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">14. The leadership dispute between Mr Gendzhev and Mr Hasan continued throughout 1993 and 1994. The official position of the Directorate of Religious Denominations remained that Mr Hasan was the legitimate Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims. At the same time the </span>Directorate apparently sought to “resolve” the dispute through the “unification” of the two factions under a common leadership.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">15. On 2 November 1994 the supporters of Mr Gendzhev held a national conference, which proclaimed itself the legitimate representative of Muslim believers. The conference elected a leadership and adopted a statute. Mr Gendzhev was elected President of the Supreme Holy Council. After the conference the newly elected leaders applied to the Directorate for registration as the legitimate leadership of Muslims in Bulgaria.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">16. At the end of 1994 parliamentary elections took place in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Socialist Party (Българска социалистическа партия – “the BSP”) obtained a majority in Parliament and formed a new government, which took office in January 1995.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">17. On 22 February 1995 the Deputy Prime Minister issued a decree approving the statute of the Muslim denomination as adopted by the supporters of Mr Gendzhev on 2 November 1994. On 23 February 1995 the Directorate registered the leadership elected at that conference and effectively removed Mr Hasan and his supporters. In the following months the faction led by Mr Gendzhev assumed full control over the property and activities of the Muslim community in Bulgaria.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">18. Mr Hasan appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Directorate registering Mr Gendzhev’s leadership. Mr Hasan submitted, inter alia, that the conference of 2 November 1994 had been organised by people outside the Muslim religious organisation presided over by him. Accordingly, they could register their own religious organisation but could not claim to replace the leadership of another. Mr Hasan asked the Supreme Court either to proclaim the February 1995 decision null and void as being contrary to the law or to declare that it constituted the registration of a new religious community, the existing Muslim organisation being unaffected. The State did not have the right, he argued, to impose a single leadership on the Muslims.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">19. On 27 July 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court stated that under the Religious Denominations Act the Council of Ministers enjoyed full discretion in its decision as to whether or not to register the statute of a given religion. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was therefore limited to an examination of whether the impugned decision had been issued by the competent administrative organ and whether the procedural requirements had been complied with. In that respect the decision of February 1995 was lawful.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">20. As regards the request for interpretation of the February 1995 decision, it was not open to the Supreme Court, in the context of those particular proceedings, to state its opinion as to whether it had the effect of creating a new legal person, or introducing changes, and whether after this decision there existed two parallel Muslim religious organisations.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. Mr Hasan’s attempts in 1996 and 1997 to restore his position</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">21. Following the removal of Mr Hasan, in 1995 the Muslim believers who supported him held their own assembly and re-elected him Chief Mufti, while introducing changes in the organisation’s statute and leadership. Mr Hasan then applied to the Directorate of Religious Denominations for registration of the amended statute and the new leadership. Not having received any response, Mr Hasan appealed to the Supreme Court against the tacit refusal of his application.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">22. On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. It noted that in 1992 the Chief Mufti’s Office as represented by Mr Hasan had been duly registered as a religious denomination and had thus obtained legal personality of which it had not subsequently been deprived. Therefore, the Council of Ministers was under an obligation, pursuant to sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act, to examine a request for registration of a new statute or of changes in the leadership of the existing religious denomination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Council of Ministers’ tacit refusal had been unlawful and remitted the file to the Council of Ministers, which was required to examine it.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">23. On 19 November 1996 the Deputy Prime Minister refused to register the 1995 statute and leadership of the Chief Mufti’s Office as represented by Mr Hasan. He sent him a letter stating, inter alia, that the Council of Ministers had already registered a leadership of the Muslim community in Bulgaria, which was that elected by the November 1994 conference with Mr Gendzhev as President of the Supreme Holy Council. The Deputy Prime Minister concluded that the request “[could not] be granted as it [was] clearly contrary to the provisions of the Religious Denominations Act”.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">24. On 5 December 1996 Mr Hasan appealed to the Supreme Court against the refusal of 19 November 1996.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">25. On 13 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the refusal of the Deputy Prime Minister to register the 1995 statute and leadership headed by Mr Hasan on the ground that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution. That refusal was, moreover, “an unlawful administrative intervention into the internal organisation of [a] religious community”. The Supreme Court again ordered the transmission of the file to the Council of Ministers for registration.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">26. Despite the Supreme Court judgments of 1996 and 1997 the Council of Ministers did not grant registration to the religious leadership headed by Mr Hasan.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The change of leadership in 1997 and ensuing judicial proceedings</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. The national conference of October 1997</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">27. In February 1997 the government of the BSP stepped down and an interim cabinet was appointed. At the general elections that followed in April 1997 the SDS obtained a majority in Parliament and formed a new government.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">28. The new Deputy Prime Minister and the Directorate of Religious Denominations urged the two rival leaderships, of Mr Hasan and of Mr Gendzhev, to negotiate a unification.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">29. On 12 September 1997, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Directorate, the religious leadership presided over by Mr Hasan demanded the removal of Mr Gendzhev.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">30. On 18 September 1997 the Supreme Holy Council headed by Mr Gendzhev, also in a letter addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Directorate, proposed the holding of a unification conference to be organised by a joint committee composed of representatives of the opposing factions. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked to serve as guarantor of the unification process and to ensure full representation at the conference of all Muslim religious communities. The letter also indicated that the current official leadership presided over by Mr Gendzhev agreed to freeze any movements of staff or disposals of community property pending the conference.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">31. On 30 September 1997 the contact groups elected by the rival factions – composed of five members each – signed an agreement to convene a national conference of all Muslim believers. The agreement was also signed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Director of Religious Denominations. It provided, inter alia:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“1. The all-Muslim conference shall be organised on the basis of full representation of the Muslim denomination. It shall not be based on the two existing statutes [of the rival leaderships]. [The] Deputy Prime Minister ... and the Director of Religious Denominations undertake to guarantee the implementation of this principle.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">2. ... The [rival groups] undertake not to obstruct the spirit of unification underlying the conference, failing which the Directorate shall take appropriate administrative measures against the persons suspected of [obstruction].</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">3. Pending the conference, the [leadership headed by Mr Gendzhev] undertakes to refrain from any administrative decisions, [such as] appointments ...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">4. The [leadership headed by Mr Gendzhev] consents to a freeze on all bank accounts ... and declares that pending the conference it will not enter into any transaction ...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">7. The joint committee shall draw up rules and a procedure for the organisation of the conference...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">32. On an unspecified date the joint committee ruled that the assembly of each local community attending a mosque should elect two delegates to the national conference. It also decided that the minutes of the assemblies’ proceedings had to be entered on a form provided by the Directorate of Religious Denominations and certified by the local mayor.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">33. On 6 October 1997 the joint committee decided that the conference should be held on 23 October 1997 and also agreed on the distribution of expenses.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">34. Local assemblies for the election of delegates were held on 17 October 1997 throughout the country. The local mayors issued letters certifying the results of the elections.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">35. The applicant organisation has submitted copies of two complaints to the Directorate dated 21 October 1997, one by a local religious leader and one by the mayor of a village. The letters stated that persons connected with the DPS had used threats to take possession of the results of the elections of delegates in the two localities concerned.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">36. On 21 and 22 October 1997 Mr Gendzhev and those who had signed the unification agreement on behalf of the Supreme Holy Council headed by him wrote to the Prime Minister and the Directorate of Religious Denominations stating that the conference planned for 23 October was not being organised in accordance with the statute of the Muslim religious organisation and that it was therefore unlawful. Those who had signed the agreement of 30 September 1997 stated that they had been forced to do so by the Director of Religious Denominations and declared the withdrawal of their support for that agreement. The letter signed by Mr Gendzhev further described the participation of the Directorate in the preparation of the conference as unacceptable State interference in the Muslims’ internal affairs.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">37. On 23 October 1997 more than one thousand delegates attended the conference. Only those whose election had been certified by the mayors were allowed to participate. According to the press, the verification of the delegates’ credentials was carried out by employees of the Directorate of Religious Denominations. Its Director addressed the conference, stating, inter alia, that Mr Gendzhev, who did not attend, had “failed the test”. With these words the Director apparently blamed Mr Gendzhev for having withdrawn from the unification process.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">38. According to the applicant organisation, the DPS, a political party with a large majority of ethnic Turks among its members, was involved in the organisation of the conference. The party was allegedly very close to the ruling SDS and was implementing the political decision to replace the leadership of the Muslim community. According to the applicant organisation, about one hundred of the delegates on 23 October 1997 were mayors elected on the DPS ticket.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">39. The conference adopted a new statute of the Muslim denomination in Bulgaria and unanimously elected a new leadership comprising six members of the leadership of Mr Hasan and other persons. It appears that no leader of the applicant organisation was among the newly elected leadership. The conference passed a resolution authorising the new leadership to conduct an audit and to seek the prosecution of Mr Gendzhev for alleged unlawful transactions.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">40. On 28 October 1997 the Deputy Prime Minister registered the newly elected leadership, relying </span>on sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">. The new leadership took over all the organisational aspects and assets of the Muslim community in Bulgaria.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Judicial appeals by the Supreme Holy Council led by Mr Gendzhev</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">41. Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained the President of the Supreme Holy Council, appealed on its behalf to the Supreme Administrative Court against the Government’s decision to register the new leadership. He claimed that the persons who had signed the agreement for the holding of a unification conference on behalf of the applicant organisation had never been officially authorised to do so; that the conference had been unlawful because of that fact and since those persons had in any event withdrawn; and that the authorities had interfered in an inadmissible manner in the internal affairs of the Muslim community. That was so because the Directorate of Religious Denominations had prepared the forms on which the results of the local elections for delegates had been recorded and also because those results had been certified by the mayors. Furthermore, among the elected delegates there had been a number of persons who were local mayors or active members of one political party, the DPS. Finally, the applicant organisation argued that there had been irregularities and manipulation in the election of delegates.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">42. On 4 May 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing. It admitted in evidence the material submitted by the applicant organisation but refused its request for a disclosure order against the Council of Ministers. That request apparently concerned documents about the preparation of the October 1997 conference and the election of delegates. The court also refused to hear witnesses.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">43. On 16 July 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, rejected the appeal as being inadmissible. It found that the Supreme Holy Council headed by Mr Gendzhev had no locus standi to lodge an appeal as it had never been validly registered. The registration acts of 22 and 23 February 1995 had been based on a decision by a Deputy Prime Minister who had not, however, been duly authorised by the Council of Ministers to approve the statutes of religious denominations. As a result the Supreme Holy Council headed by Mr Gendzhev had never legally existed and all its acts between 1995 and 1997 were null and void.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">44. On an appeal by the applicant organisation, on 9 October 1998 a five-member bench of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 16 July 1998 and remitted the case for examination on the merits. The bench noted that by judgment of 27 July 1995 the Supreme Court had found that the 1995 registration of the Supreme Holy Council headed by Mr Gendzhev had been lawful. That finding was final and binding. Therefore, the applicant’s appeal could not be rejected for lack of locus standi.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">45. In the reopened proceedings a three-member bench of the Supreme Administrative Court examined the appeal on the merits and dismissed it on 3 May 1999. The presiding judge was the same person who had presided over the previous examination of the case, which had ended with the inadmissibility decision of 16 July 1998. He was also one of the three judges who had delivered judgment on 28 April 1992 in the case concerning Mr Gendzhev’s removal in 1992.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">46. The court found that the acts of the authorities did not constitute an interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community. The decision to hold a unification conference had been taken freely by representatives of the two rival groups. The rules and procedures for the election of delegates and for the holding of the October 1997 conference, including those concerning the results of the local elections for delegates and their certification, had been drawn up by the joint committee. The Directorate of Religious Denominations had contributed to the organisation of the conference purely at the parties’ request. It had acted in accordance with the agreement between the two leaderships and the decisions of the joint committee. The Directorate’s task had been to contribute to and guarantee tolerance and respect in inter-religious relations as well as in the relations between different groups belonging to one and the same religion. The fact that the Supreme Holy Council presided over by Mr Gendzhev had withdrawn at the last minute did not call into question the validity of the conference, which had taken place in accordance with the negotiated rules. It was true that these rules derogated from the statute of the Muslim community as in force at the relevant time but the derogation had been decided upon freely by the two leaderships in order to resolve the conflict within the community. It followed that the impugned act, the decision of 28 October 1997 registering the newly elected leadership of the Muslim community, was in accordance with the law.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">47. The applicant organisation submitted a cassation appeal against the judgment of 3 May 1999. It alleged, inter alia, that not all the relevant evidence had been collected and examined.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">48. On 15 March 2000 the appeal was dismissed by a five-member bench of the Supreme Administrative Court, which upheld the reasoning of the impugned judgment. It also found that the relevant facts had been clarified and that the additional evidence submitted by the applicant organisation in the cassation proceedings had been the same as that submitted earlier. The applicant organisation was legally represented in the above proceedings.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">3. Subsequent events</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">49. The divide within the Muslim community in Bulgaria continued. It appears that the legitimacy of a community assembly held in November 2000 was disputed by some leaders. Divisions also persisted at local level. In a letter of February 2001, the Directorate of Religious Denominations certified that it had not registered the local leadership of the Muslim community in Plovdiv as two separate local assemblies had elected their leaderships and were in dispute. Similar problems occurred in Haskovo and Russe in the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">50. In July 2004 the Sofia City Court appointed three persons to represent the Muslim community in Bulgaria temporarily, pending judicial proceedings concerning the validity of the election of a new leadership at a national conference held in December 2003.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">51. The relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution read as follows:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 13</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“(1) Religions shall be free.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">(2) Religious institutions shall be separate from the State...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">(4) Religious institutions and communities, and religious beliefs shall not be used for political ends.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 37</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“(1) The freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and the choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The State shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations, and between believers and non-believers.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">(2) The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">52. The Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 5 of 11 June 1992 interpreting the above provisions states, inter alia, that the State must not interfere with the internal organisation of religious communities and institutions, which must be regulated by their own statutes and rules. The State may interfere with the activity of a religious community or institution only in the cases contemplated in Articles 13 § 4 and 37 § 2 of the Constitution. An assessment as to whether there is such a case may also be undertaken at the time of registration of a religious community or institution.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">53. The Religious Denominations Act 1949 was amended several times. The relevant provisions of the Act, as in force at the time of the events at issue, read as follows.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Section 6</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“(1) A religious denomination shall be considered recognised and shall become a legal person upon the approval of its statute by the Council of Ministers, or by a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">(2) The Council of Ministers, or a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose, shall revoke the recognition, by a reasoned decision, if the activities of the religious denomination breach the law, public order or morals.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Section 9</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“(1) Every religious denomination shall have a leadership accountable to the State.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">(2) The statute of the religious denomination shall establish its governing and representative bodies and the procedure for their election and appointment... “</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Section 16</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“(1) The national governing bodies of the religious denominations shall register with the Directorate of Religious Denominations of the Council of Ministers, and local governing bodies with the local municipalities, and they shall submit a list of the names of all members of these governing bodies.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">54. The Act also laid down rules regarding the activities of a religious denomination, imposed requirements as regards its clergy and gave the Directorate of Religious Denominations wide supervisory functions. In its judgment no. 5 of 11 June 1992 the Constitutional Court, while agreeing that certain provisions of the Religious Denominations Act were clearly unconstitutional (the court cited as examples several provisions concerning the powers of the Directorate to dismiss clergymen and to control the activities of religious organisations), found that it was not its task to repeal legal provisions adopted prior to the entry into force of the 1991 Constitution, the ordinary courts being competent to declare them inapplicable.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">55. Under Decree No. 125 of the Council of Ministers of 6 December 1990, as amended, the competence of the Directorate of Religious Denominations includes “contacts between the State and religions denominations”, assistance to central and local administrative authorities in solving problems which involve religious matters and assistance to religious organisations as regards education and publications.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">56. In accordance with the Regulations on the registration of the local leadership of religious denominations, issued by the Government in 1994 (State Gazette no. 87 of 25 October 1994), such registration is only possible if the election of a local leadership has been approved by the registered national leadership of the religious denomination.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">57. The Religious Denominations Act 1949 has been interpreted in the administrative practice of the Directorate and the Council of Ministers as requiring that each religious denomination must have a single leadership and that parallel organisations of the same religious denomination are not allowed. The judicial practice during the relevant period evolved from the initial position that the Council of Ministers and the Directorate enjoyed unfettered discretion in the registration of the leadership and statute of a religious denomination (see paragraphs 13 and 19 above) to the position that the courts, when asked to rule on the lawfulness of a Government decision registering a new religious leadership, had to examine whether the new leadership had been appointed in compliance with the religious denomination’s statute, in its version as registered by the Directorate (see paragraphs 22 and 25 above and also the following judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court: judgment no. 4816 of 21 September 1999 in case no. 2697/99, judgment no. 2919 of 28 April 2001 in case no. 8194/99 and judgment no. 9184 of 16 October 2003 in case no. 6747/02).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">58. The Religious Denominations Act 1949 was repealed with effect as from 1 January 2003, upon the entry into force of the new Religious Denominations Act 2003.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">59. The new Act provides for judicial registration of religious denominations as legal persons. Before deciding, the court may request an expert opinion from the Directorate of Religious Denominations.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">60. Section 15(2) provides that no more than one registration may be made concerning a religious denomination with the same name. Section 36 provides that a person who acts on behalf of a religious denomination without authorisation is to be fined by the Directorate of Religious Denominations. Paragraph 3 of the transitional provisions to the Act provides that persons who had seceded from a registered religious institution before the Act’s entry into force in breach of the institution’s government-registered internal rules are not entitled to use the name of the religious institution or its assets.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">61. In February 2003 fifty members of Parliament asked the Constitutional Court to repeal certain provisions of the new Act as being unconstitutional and contrary to the Convention. The Constitutional Court gave judgment on 15 July 2003.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">62. Sections 15(2) and 36 were not among the provisions challenged but paragraph 3 of the transitional provisions was (see paragraph 60 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">63. The Constitutional Court could not reach a majority verdict, an equal number of judges having voted in favour and against the request to declare that provision unconstitutional. According to the Constitutional Court’s practice, in such circumstances the request for a legal provision to be struck down is considered to be dismissed by default. The judges who voted against the request considered, inter alia, that the principle of legal certainty required that persons who had seceded from a religious denomination should not be allowed to use its name. Further, it was obvious that they could not claim part of its assets, as the assets belonged to the religious denomination as a legal person. The judges who considered that the provision was unconstitutional stated that it purported to regulate issues that concerned the internal organisation of religious communities and thus violated their autonomy. Those judges further stated that the provision, applied in the context of existing disputes, favoured one of the groups in a divided religious community and, therefore, did not contribute to maintaining tolerance but rather frustrated that aim. It thus violated Article 9 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">64. The applicant organisation complained that the authorities had organised and manipulated the October 1997 Muslim conference with the aim of favouring one of the rival leaderships and removing Mr Gendzhev, thus arbitrarily intervening in the affairs of the Muslim community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">65. The Court considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Article 9 of the Convention, which provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. The parties’ submissions</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. The applicant organisation</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">66. The applicant organisation submitted that Mr Gendzhev had been unlawfully removed in 1992 by Mr Hasan and that in 1997 Mr Hasan had sought a repeat of these events, counting on the support of the SDS, the political party which had “helped” him in 1992, and which had again come to power in 1997.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">67. The applicant organisation further stated that Mr Gendzhev had actively sought the achievement of unification, which he considered important for the well-being of the Muslim community, but had had to withdraw because of irregularities in the election of delegates. The Government’s argument that the withdrawal of several persons did not affect the legitimacy of the conference was flawed since the leaders had withdrawn precisely because of the illegitimacy of the local elections of delegates.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">68. In particular, the authorities had gone far beyond what was necessary for the organisation of the conference and had mounted a concerted effort to remove Mr Gendzhev. Pressure had been brought to bear on local communities in the elections for delegates. The election results had been manipulated since, contrary to the relevant regulations, elections had been held in many villages which were not independent municipalities. On at least three occasions the results had been forged.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. The Government</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">69. The Government stated that the divisions within the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria since 1989 had been caused by conflicts of a political and personal nature. In 1997 efforts had been made to overcome these differences and unify the community. The representatives of the rival groups had signed an agreement for the holding of a unification conference and had solicited the assistance of the Directorate of Religious Denominations. The role of the Directorate had been that of a neutral guarantor of the agreement entered into freely by the opposing factions. Mr Gendzhev himself had solicited such participation of the Directorate, apparently considering it vital in the unification process. The joint committee had freely decided that it wished the results of local elections of delegates to be certified by the mayors.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">70. Furthermore, as established by the courts later, the election of delegates had proceeded normally. The large turnout had demonstrated the community’s will for unification.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">71. The Government also underlined that the case did not concern a process of putting two religious communities under a single leadership but a situation where one religious community had two leaderships. Contradictory decisions of the authorities during the period 1992-1997, including those criticised by the Court in its Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria judgment, had resulted in confusion as to the leadership of the Muslim community. Unlike in previous years, however, in 1997 the State had not interfered in the internal affairs of the community but had only assisted it in its efforts to achieve unification, as part of the authorities’ duty under the Constitution to help maintaining a climate of tolerance in religious life.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">72. The Government stated that the reasons given by Mr Gendzhev and the five members of the contact group nominated by the Supreme Holy Council presided over by him for their withdrawal from the national conference were vague and left the impression that they had simply been dissatisfied with the results of the primary elections of delegates. The Government considered that the withdrawal of five persons did not call into question the legitimacy of the national conference and that the authorities had rightly accepted its results.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. The Court’s assessment</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">1. Applicability of Article 9</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">73. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, while religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to manifest one’s religion, alone and in private, or in community with others, in public and within the circle of those whose faith one shares. Participation in the life of the community is a manifestation of one’s religion, protected by Article 9 of the Convention. The right to freedom of religion under Article 9, interpreted in the light of Article 11, the provision which safeguards associations against unjustified State interference, encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function peacefully, free from arbitrary State intervention (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 62, ECHR 2000-XI).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">74. The applicant organisation was the official body representing and managing the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria between February 1995 and October 1997. It complained about alleged arbitrary interference by the State with the organisation and leadership of that community. An ecclesiastical or religious body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its adherents the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention (see, Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-VII).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">75. It follows that the applicant organisation’s complaints fall within the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention, which is applicable.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 48.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;">2. Compliance with Article 9</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(a) Whether there was an interference</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">76. According to the Court’s case-law, State measures favouring a particular leader or group in a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community, or part of it, to place itself under a single leadership against its will would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion (see Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, §§ 49, 52 and 53, ECHR 1999-IX and Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 78).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">77. The present case concerns the replacement of the Bulgarian Muslim community’s leadership in October 1997 and the ensuing proceedings. The central issue in dispute is whether these events were the result of undue State pressure or nothing more than a change of leadership freely effected by the community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">78. The impugned change of leadership was decided in October 1997 by a unification assembly convened pursuant to an agreement entered into by the two rival leaderships, in accordance with rules set out by a joint committee that included representatives of the applicant organisation (see paragraphs 31-33 above). The Directorate of Religious Denominations and the local authorities participated in the process in that they urged the two groups to unite, took an active part in the organisation of the October 1997 assembly and registered the leadership it elected as the sole representative of the Muslim community in Bulgaria (see paragraphs 28-30, 34 and 37 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">79. The Government argued that the authorities had merely mediated between the opposing groups and assisted the unification process as they were under a constitutional duty to secure religious tolerance and peaceful relations between groups of believers. </div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">80. The Court agrees that States have such a duty and that discharging it may require engaging in mediation. Neutral mediation between groups of believers would not in principle amount to State interference with the believers’ rights under Article 9 of the Convention, although the State authorities must be cautious in this particularly delicate area.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">81. The Court notes, however, that the unification process in 1997 took place against the backdrop of the events in 1992 and 1995 when changes of government were swiftly followed by State action to replace religious leaders and grant legal recognition to one of the two rival leaderships (see paragraphs 8-20 and 27 above). It is highly significant that the relevant law as applied in practice required – and still requires – all believers belonging to a particular religion and willing to participate in the community’s organisation to form a single structure, headed by a single leadership even if the community is divided, without the possibility for those supporting other leaders to have an independent organisational life and control over part of the community’s assets (see paragraphs 17, 23, 40, 53-63 above). The law thus left no choice to the religious leaders but to compete in seeking the recognition of the government of the day, each leader proposing to “unite” the believers under his guidance. </div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">82. Against that background, the fact that in 1997 the new Government called for the unification of the divided Muslim community (see paragraphs 28-30, 34 and 37 above) is of particular significance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">83. The Court considers that the applicant organisation’s allegation that the mayors of a number of localities and political figures participated too closely in the selection of delegates to the October 1997 assembly does not appear implausible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">84. Furthermore, even if the initial participation of the Directorate is seen as nothing more than neutral mediation in the preparation of a unification assembly, matters changed at the moment when the Directorate continued to insist on “unification" despite the fact that the leaders of the applicant organisation decided to withdraw. It was not for the State to decide whether or not Mr Gendzhev and the organisation presided over by him should or should not withdraw. The Directorate could have noted the failure of the unification effort and expressed readiness to continue assisting the parties through mediation, if all concerned so desired. Instead, the leaders elected by the October 1997 conference obtained the status of the sole legitimate leadership of the Muslim community and as a result the applicant organisation could no longer represent at least part of the religious community and manage its affairs and assets according to the will of that part of the community (see paragraphs 31-40 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">85. The Court thus finds that there has been an interference with the applicant organisation’s rights under Article 9 of the Convention in that the relevant law and practice and the authorities’ actions in October 1997 had the effect of compelling the divided community to have a single leadership against the will of one of the two rival leaderships.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">86. Such an interference entails a violation of that provision unless it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of a legitimate aim.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(b) Whether the interference was prescribed by law</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">87. The Government’s decision registering a change of leadership in the Muslim community relied on sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act (see paragraph 53 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">88. In the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, cited above (§ 86), the Court found that the interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community in 1995-1997 had not been “prescribed by law” as it had been arbitrary and based on legal provisions which allowed an unfettered discretion to the executive and did not meet the required standards of clarity and foreseeability of the law.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">89. Although the same legal provisions applied in the present case, the Court observes that there were considerable differences in the authorities’ approach. In 1997 the authorities did not make use of the unfettered discretion they enjoyed under the applicable law and proceeded on the basis that the rival groups had set up their own rules through an agreement derogating from the existing statute of the Muslim denomination (see paragraphs 31 and 46 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">90. In these specific circumstances, the Court, having regard to the fact that the gist of the applicant organisation’s allegations concerns the alleged lack of justification for the State interference with the internal affairs of the Muslim community, considers that it is not necessary to rule on the lawfulness of that interference.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(c) Whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">91. The applicant organisation submitted that the authorities’ aim had been to remove Mr Gendzhev and the leadership presided over by him. The Government stated that they had sought to help resolve the conflict in the Muslim community and remedy the consequences of past unlawful State actions.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">92. The Court accepts that the authorities’ general concern was to restore legality and remedy the arbitrary removal in 1995 of Mr Hasan and the leadership presided over by him. Seen in this perspective, the interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community was in principle aimed at the protection of public order and of the rights and freedoms of others.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">(d) Whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">93. The Court reiterates that the autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society. While it may be necessary for the State to take action to reconcile the interests of the various religions and religious groups that coexist in a democratic society, the State has a duty to remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory power and in its relations with the various religions, denominations and beliefs. What is at stake here is the preservation of pluralism and the proper functioning of democracy, one of the principal characteristics of which is the possibility it offers of resolving a country’s problems through dialogue, even when they are irksome (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p.18, § 33, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 123 ECHR 2001-XII, and Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 78).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">94. In the present case, the relevant law and practice and the authorities’ actions in October 1997 had the effect of compelling the divided community to have a single leadership against the will of one of the two rival leaderships (see paragraph 85 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">95. As a result, one of the groups of leaders was favoured and the other excluded and deprived of the possibility of continuing to manage autonomously the affairs and assets of that part of the community which supported it (see paragraph 84 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">96. It is true that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the particularly delicate area of their relations with religious communities (see Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, cited above, § 84). The Court reiterates, however, that in democratic societies the State does not need in principle to take measures to ensure that religious communities remain or are brought under a unified leadership. The role of the authorities in a situation of conflict between or within religious groups is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other. As the Court has already stated above, State measures favouring a particular leader of a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community, or part of it, to place itself under a single leadership against its will would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion. (see Serif v. Greece, cited above, §§ 49, 52 and 53, and Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 78).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">97. The Government have not stated why in the present case their aim to restore legality and remedy injustices could not be achieved by other means, without compelling the divided community under a single leadership. It is significant in this regard that despite the “unification” process in 1997 the conflict in the religious community continued (see paragraphs 49 and 50 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">98. In sum, the Court considers that the Bulgarian authorities went beyond the limits of their margin of appreciation under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention. </div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">99. It follows that the interference with the applicant organisation’s rights under Article 9 of the Convention in 1997 was not necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public order or the rights and freedoms of others and was therefore contrary to that provision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">100. The applicant organisation complained that the judicial proceedings it had instituted had not provided an effective remedy against the arbitrary acts of the authorities and that no other remedies had been available.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">101. The Court considers that the above complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">102. The Government submitted that the courts, by examining the applicant organisation’s appeals on the merits, provided an effective remedy against the alleged interference with the believers’ Article 9 rights.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">103. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, Article 13 guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention. Such a remedy must allow the competent domestic authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they discharge their obligations under Article 13. The remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">104. The applicant organisation’s claim under Article 9 of the Convention was undoubtedly arguable (see paragraph 99 above). It follows that Article 13 required the availability of an effective domestic remedy.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">105. The applicant organisation was provided with a judicial remedy. The Supreme Administrative Court examined on the merits its claim that there had been unlawful and arbitrary State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community (see paragraphs 45-48 above). </div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">106. The Supreme Administrative Court decided against the applicant organisation as it assessed the organisation’s complaints in the light of the domestic legal regime and practice that forces a divided religious community to have a single leadership, even against the will of one of the rival groups (see paragraphs 46, 48, 53-57 and 81 above).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">107. The Court reiterates, however, that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, § 61; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 151, ECHR 2000-XI, and Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, § 109, 27 May 2004).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">108. The applicant organisation’s complaint related in essence to one of the principles underlying the applicable legal regime. It cannot be considered that Article 13 of the Convention required the provision of a remedy to challenge that regime.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">109. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">110. The applicant organisation alleged that there had been a number of separate violations of Article 6 of the Convention in the 1998-2000 proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. It also considered that the events complained of disclosed discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention since the authorities had favoured one of the rival leaderships of the Muslim community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">111. The provisions relied upon provide in so far as relevant:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 6 § 1</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an ...impartial tribunal...”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">Article 14</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">112. Having regard to its findings under Article 9 and 13 of the Convention, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine the same issues under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">113. Article 41 of the Convention provides:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">A. Damage</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">114. The applicant organisation claimed 25,000 euros (“EUR”) for the alleged damage to the reputation of Mr Gendzhev and the leadership presided over by him and the consequences of the State interference in the internal affairs of the Muslim community.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">115. The Government considered that the amount claimed was excessive and that the finding of a violation of the Convention would be sufficient just satisfaction.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">116. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case and its case-law concerning claims for non-pecuniary damage made on behalf of legal persons or organisations (see Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-VIII; Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no 35382/97, ECHR 2000-IV, § 35; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 121, ECHR 2001-IX; and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, cited above, § 146), the Court considers that an award under this head is appropriate. The unjustified State interference with the organisation of the religious community must have caused non-pecuniary damage to the applicant organisation. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be paid to Mr N. Gendzhev as the representative of the applicant organisation.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">B. Costs and expenses</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">117. The applicant organisation claimed approximately EUR 6,800 for legal work in the domestic proceedings and before the Convention institutions and the equivalent of approximately EUR 500 for translation costs, express mail and overhead expenses. It presented copies of legal-fee agreements between the applicant organisation and Mrs Margaritova-Vutchkova, its legal representative before the Court, receipts showing that it had paid sums to three lawyers, including Mrs Margaritova-Vutchkova, for work done in several sets of separate judicial proceedings in Bulgaria and receipts concerning translation costs and postal expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">118. The Government stated that no time-sheet for Mrs Margaritova-Vutchkova’s work had been submitted and that some of the fees paid to other lawyers concerned domestic proceedings unrelated to the present case. The Government also stated that the fees and expenses claimed were excessive.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">119. On the basis of the legal-fee agreement submitted by the applicant organisation and the relevant receipts, the Court concludes that the legal costs claimed were, for the most part, actually and necessarily incurred, but applies a reduction on account of the fact that some of the initial complaints were declared inadmissible (see paragraph 6 above). Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 64.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">C. Default interest</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">120. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">2. Holds that there has not been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">3. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the complaints under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">4. Holds</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(a) that the respondent State is to pay to Mr N. Gendzhev, the representative of the applicant organisation, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 45.0px; text-align: justify;">(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 45.0px; text-align: justify;">(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 45.0px; text-align: justify;">(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify;">(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 December 2004, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Registrar President</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">SUPREME HOLY COUNCIL OF THE MUSLIM</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">COMMUNITY v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT</div><div><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-24195041088807101292010-12-27T16:39:00.000+01:002010-12-27T16:39:31.956+01:00CASE OF LOTTER AND LOTTER v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-3)<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FIRST SECTION</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;"><b>CASE OF LOTTER AND LOTTER v. BULGARIA</b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Application no. 39015/97)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">JUDGMENT</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Friendly settlement)</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">19 May 2004</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 24.0px;">This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Lotter and Lotter v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr P. LORENZEN, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs F. TULKENS, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr A. KOVLER, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr K. HAJIYEV, judges, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs E. STEINER, substitute judge, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span>and Mr S. NIELSEN, Section Registrar,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 29 April 2004,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in an application (no. 39015/97) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Austrian nationals, Mr Alfred Lotter and Ms Edith Lotter (Bernhart) (“the applicants”), on 5 November 1997.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. The applicants were represented by Mr A. Garay, a lawyer practising in Paris and, at a later stage, by Mr R. Kohlhofer, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their agents, Ms G. Samaras, Ms M. Dimova and Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. The applicants complained, relying on Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, that the Bulgarian authorities had acted arbitrarily and unlawfully and had ordered them to leave Bulgaria for the sole reason that they were Jehovah’s Witnesses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. The case was transferred to the Court on 1 November 1998 by virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. On 6 February 2003, having obtained the parties’ observations, the Court declared the application admissible.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. On 16 October 2003 and on 3 November 2003 the Government and the applicants respectively stated that they had reached a friendly settlement and submitted its text.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. On 24 February 2004 the friendly settlement agreement was approved by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE FACTS</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">8. The applicants, Mr Alfred Lotter and Ms Edith Lotter (Bernhart), are Austrian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1962 respectively. At the relevant time they were married together. The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">9. The applicants visited Bulgaria for the first time in December 1992. They entered Bulgaria again on 1 March 1993 and remained in the country for the following several years. In 1993 they obtained temporary residence permits valid until 6 November 1995.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">10. On 22 April 1993 the investigation authorities opened a criminal investigation into the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In April and July 1993 the first applicant and other followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses were questioned.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">11. In June 1994, following a legislative amendment requiring religious associations to re-register, by decision of the Council of Ministers a number of such associations, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organisation in Bulgaria, were refused re-registration (see Khristiansko Sdruzhenie “Svideteli na Iehova” (Christian Association Jehovah’s Witnesses) v. Bulgaria, no. 28626/98, Commission’s decision of 3 July 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90, p. 77). Although the applicants were not members of the dissolved association, it was an established administrative practice in Bulgaria to consider that the Council of Ministers’ decision of June 1994 rendered unlawful all religious activity related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ cult.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">12. On 1 December 1995, acting on the recommendation of the Plovdiv security service, the police withdrew the applicants’ residence permits and ordered them to leave Bulgaria by 29 December 1995. The police decisions only stated that they were based on section 31(1) of the Aliens (Residence in Bulgaria) Act, which provided that an alien could be refused the right to reside in Bulgaria if he or she has endangered the security or the interests of the State or his or her activities could pose a threat in this respect. No reasons were provided.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">13. The applicants appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. In a decision of 15 March 1996 that court held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the appeal as under section 34(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act measures relating to the national security were excluded from judicial review.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">14. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. On 6 May 1997 the Supreme Court, which had in the meanwhile become the Supreme Administrative Court, dismissed the appeals.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">15. The first applicant left Bulgaria at the end of 1997. It appears that the applicants divorced. The second applicant married a Bulgarian citizen and stayed in Bulgaria.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">16. Following several months of negotiations, in February 1998 the Bulgarian Government and persons representing the dissolved association of Jehovah’s Witnesses signed a friendly settlement in the proceedings before the former Commission (see Khristiansko Sdruzhenie “Svideteli na Iehova” (Christian Association Jehovah’s Witnesses) v. Bulgaria, no. 28626/95, Commission’s report of 9 March 1998, DR 92, p. 44). Since October 1998 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria enjoy the status of a religious denomination.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">17. On 26 October 2003 the Court received a friendly settlement agreement, signed by the representatives of the parties on 6 August 2003 in Sofia, in the presence of the Director of Religious Denominations at the Bulgarian Council of Ministers. The agreement was approved by a decision of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers of 24 February 2004. The text of the agreement reads, insofar as relevant:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“Whereas Article 9 of the [Convention, the Court’s case-law and the Bulgarian Constitution protect freedom of religion and religious pluralism, including as far as Jehovah’s Witnesses are concerned], ...</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">Whereas on 9 March 1988 Bulgaria and Jehovah’s Witnesses reached a friendly settlement ... in application no. 28626/95 under the supervision of the European Commission of Human Rights, stating that Jehovah’s Witnesses would be officially registered as a religion,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">Whereas in its preamble the new Religious Denominations Act [of December 2002] confirms the right of every individual to freedom of ... religion ... [and prohibits persecution on the basis of religious belief],</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">Whereas [Jehovah’s Witnesses’ cult is registered as a religious denomination in Bulgaria],</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">Whereas on 6 February 2003 the European Court [of Human Rights] declared [this] application admissible,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">The parties hereby agree:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">1. That the respondent Government shall pay the applicants Alfred Lotter and Edith Bernhart Euro 3,000 (three thousand euro) for non-pecuniary damages (Euro 1,500 each) and Euro 5,000 for costs and expenses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">2. That the respondent Government shall cancel orders nos. 1759 and 1761 of December 1, 1995, issued by the Director of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior in Plovdiv, whereby the applicants[‘] residence permits were withdrawn,</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">3. That the respondent Government shall submit before [the] Court ... additional observations reflecting the legal and administrative changes in Bulgaria concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">4. Due to the fact that the Bulgarian Government fully agrees to the conditions listed above in points 1, 2 and 3 and the applicants agree to withdraw their appeals against Bulgaria, filed with the European Court of Human Rights.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">18. On 23 March 2004 the Government made the following declaration:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“Further to the friendly settlement between the applicants and the Government ... the Bulgarian Government undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court’s judgment.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">On 29 March 2004 the applicants made the following declaration:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“[F]urther to the friendly settlement between the applicants and the Government ... the applicants undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court’s judgment.”</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">19. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">20. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">1. Decides to strike the case out of the list;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;">2. Takes note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 May 2004, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Registrar President</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">LOTTER AND LOTTER v. BULGARIA (FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT) JUDGMENT</div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;"><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-65547336755802302412010-12-27T16:34:00.000+01:002010-12-27T16:34:18.559+01:00CASE OF STEFANOV v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-2)<div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">FOURTH SECTION</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">CASE OF STEFANOV v. BULGARIA</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(<i>Application no. 32438/96</i>)</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">JUDGMENT</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">(Friendly settlement)</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">STRASBOURG</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center;">3 May 2001</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">In the case of Stefanov v. Bulgaria,</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">Mr G. RESS, <i>President</i>, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr A. PASTOR RIDRUEJO, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr L. CAFLISCH, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr J. MAKARCZYK, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mr J. HEDIGAN, <span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, <i>judges</i>,</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">and Mr V. BERGER, <i>Section Registrar</i>,</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Having deliberated in private on 10 April 2001,</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">PROCEDURE</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">1. The case originated in an application (no. 32438/96) against Bulgaria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Ivailo Stefanov (“the applicant”), on 5 July 1996.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">2. The applicant was initially represented by Mrs Z. Kalaydjieva, a lawyer practicing in Sofia, and Mr P. Bitsaxis, a lawyer practising in Athens and later by Mr A. Garay, a lawyer practising in Paris. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Djidjeva, Ministry of Justice. Having initially been designated by the initials I. S., the applicant subsequently agreed to the disclosure of his name (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court).</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">3. The applicant complained, <i>inter alia</i>, under Article 9 of the Convention that there had been a violation of his right to freedom of religion and conscience. In 1995 and 1996 he had been convicted and sentenced for having refused to serve in the army allegedly only because Parliament had been slow in adopting a law establishing substitute service for conscientious objectors, despite a constitutional provision permitting such substitute service. In the applicant’s view the measures against him were thus unlawful and not necessary in a democratic society.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">4. Following communication of the application to the Government by the Commission, the case was transferred to the Court on 1 November 1998 by virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention. On 6 April 2000, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the Court declared the application admissible in so far as this complaint was concerned. A further complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was declared inadmissible on the same date.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">5. On 11 July 2000, after an exchange of correspondence, the Registrar suggested to the parties that they should attempt to reach a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">On 21 November 2000 the applicant submitted the text of a draft friendly settlement dated 15 November 2000 and signed by the parties. On 16 March 2001 the Agent of the Government informed the Court that on 8 March 2001 the agreement had been approved and had become final.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE FACTS</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">6. The applicant is a Bulgarian national born in 1975 and residing in Shoumen. In 1993 he joined the local religious community of Jehovah’s Witnesses.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">7. In September 1994 he appeared at the Regional Military Office in Shoumen in answer to a summons to receive an order for the commencement of his military service. The applicant refused to accept the order and explained that his beliefs did not allow him to serve in the army. In response the commander offered him to perform his military service in the Civil Construction Military Forces (Строителни войски), or at a military hospital, as a medical orderly, or in a military unit as a cook. The applicant refused these proposals as what was offered remained a service for the benefit of the army. Also, it would have still been necessary to undergo training with arms and to take an oath.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">8. On 24 October 1994 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant under section 361 § 1 of the Penal Code.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">On 23 March 1995 the local District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one and a half years’ imprisonment. The court found that the law protected the religious freedoms but did not exempt anyone from military service. Moreover, the applicant refused to accept offers which were made in an effort to ensure respect for his religious beliefs. This indicated that the real reasons for the applicant’s refusal to serve lay in his unwillingness to do so rather than in his religious convictions.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">The court decided that the sentence should not be suspended because its effective serving by the applicant could help him understand his constitutional duties and have a positive impact on his personal development. Also, “the sentence [had to] be served because the court [found] that the arrival of more than 50 of the [applicant’s] co-believers at the hearing [had been] organised in advance”; and because all those who had agreed to serve in the army despite their beliefs had to feel protected.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">9. The applicant appealed to the Shoumen Regional Court against his conviction and sentence. As a result, in accordance with the relevant law, the District Court’s judgment did not enter into force pending the examination of the appeal, and the applicant was not imprisoned.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">On 6 June 1995 the Regional Court delivered its judgment. It found that the District Court had given excessive weight to the “general prevention” purpose of the sentence and that as a result the sentence was manifestly disproportionate. Instead, an opportunity should have been given to the applicant to think over his acts, under the threat of effective serving of the sentence if he re-offended. The Regional Court, therefore, suspended the sentence for a period of three years.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">10. The applicant submitted a petition for review(cassation) to the Supreme Court alleging <i>inter alia</i> that the courts should have applied Article 59 § 2 of the Constitution, which provided for substitute service, and the Convention. On 17 November 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the merits, stating that the applicant undisputedly had committed the crime under section 361 § 1 of the Penal Code.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">11. Article 59 § 2 of the Bulgarian Constitution, adopted in 1991, provides that military service and “the conditions and procedure for exemption therefrom or for their replacement by substitute service, shall be regulated by act of Parliament”. At the time of the applicant’s refusal to serve in the army, military service was regulated by the Military Service Act of 1958. It did not mention substitute service.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">12. In December 1995 Parliament adopted the Defence and Armed Forces Act, in force since 27 February 1996, replacing the 1958 law. Its section 84 provides:</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“(1) The duty to perform conscription military service may be replaced by substitute service.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">(2) The conditions and the rules for performing substitute service shall be determined by act of Parliament.”</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">13. An act of Parliament regulating substitute service was adopted in November 1998 and entered into force on 1 January 1999. Persons convicted before 1 January 1999 for having refused to do military service on grounds of conscientious objection have not been granted amnesty.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 19.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">THE LAW</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">14. The text of the friendly settlement reached by the parties, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">“... [T]he parties agree as follows:</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">a) all criminal proceedings and judicial sentences in Bulgaria of Bulgaria citizens since 1991 (especially but not limited to [Mr I. S. and three other applicants in other cases]) for refusing military service by virtue of their individual conscientious objection but who were willing at the same time to perform alternative civilian service shall be dismissed and all penalties and/or disabilities heretofore imposed in these cases shall be eliminated as if there was never a conviction for a violation of the law, thus the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes the responsibility to introduce draft legislation before the National Assembly for a total amnesty for these cases;</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">b) That the alternative civilian service in Bulgaria is performed under a purely civilian administration and the military authority is not involved in civilian service and such service shall be similar in duration to that required for military service by the law on military service then in force,</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">c) That conscientious objectors have the same rights as all Bulgarian citizens to manifest their beliefs whether alone or in union with others after hours and on days off during the term of performing said civilian service without prejudice, sanction or another disability or impediment. (see ... Kokkinakis v. Greece [judgment] ), ...</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">e) That the respondent Government will pay ... [to the applicant] the sum of 2,500 Bulgarian levs ... for costs and expenses;</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;">f) The applicant[ ]..., having the Bulgarian Government fully complying with the conditions listed above on points a, b, c, ... and e, agree to withdraw [his] petition[...] against Bulgaria, filed with the European Court of Human Rights.”</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">15. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 <i>in fine</i> of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">16. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY</b></span></div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 48.0px;"><i>Decides</i> to strike the case out of the list.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;">Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May 2001, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Vincent </span><span style="font: 12.0px Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">BERGER </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Georg </span><span style="font: 12.0px Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">RESS</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font: 16.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><br />
</span> Registrar President</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 18.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #010101; font: 12.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;">STEFANOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT (FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT)</div><div style="color: #010101; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-13835596953283659592010-12-27T16:25:00.000+01:002010-12-27T16:25:43.280+01:00CASE OF HASAN AND CHAUSH v. BULGARIA (echr 9 bg-1)<div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CASE OF HASAN AND CHAUSH v. </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BULGARIA</span></b></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Application no. 30985/96)</span></i></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">JUDGMENT</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">STRASBOURG</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">26 October 2000</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 16px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the case of Hasan and Chaush v. </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">,</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr L. WILDHABER, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">President</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr J.-P. COSTA, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr A. PASTOR RIDRUEJO, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr L. FERRARI BRAVO, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr G. BONELLO, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr J. MAKARCZYK, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr P. KŪRIS, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mrs F. TULKENS, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mrs V. STRÁŽNICKÁ, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr J. CASADEVALL, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mrs H.S. GREVE, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr A.B. BAKA, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr R. MARUSTE, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr E. LEVITS, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and also of Mrs M. DE BOER-BUQUICCHIO,</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Deputy Registrar</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></div></span><br />
<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Having deliberated in private on 29 May and 4 October 2000,</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PROCEDURE</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. The case was referred to the Court in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 30 October 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. The case originated in an application (no. 30985/96) against the Republic of </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 of the Convention on 22 January 1996. The application had initially been brought by four applicants. Following the Commission's decision to disjoin and strike out the complaints of two of the applicants (see the Commission's report of 17 September 1998 under former Article 30 § 1 (a) of the Convention), the present case concerns the complaints of the remaining two applicants. These are Mr Fikri Sali Hasan and Mr Ismail Ahmed Chaush, Bulgarian nationals born in 1963 and 1940 respectively and residing in Sofia (“the applicants”).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. The applicants alleged violations of Articles 6, </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, 11 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the alleged forced replacement of the leadership of the Muslim religious community in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and the ensuing administrative and judicial proceedings.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. The Commission declared the application admissible on 8 September 1997. In its report of 26 October 1999 (former Article 31 of the Convention) [</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Note by the Registry. </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The report is obtainable from the Registry.], it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been violations of Articles </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and 13 of the Convention, that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. Before the Court the applicants were represented by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Djidjeva, Agent, of the Ministry of Justice.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6. On 6 December 1999 a panel of the Grand Chamber determined that the case should be decided by the Grand Chamber (Rule 100 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7. The applicants and the Government each filed a memorial.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 May 2000. Mr R. Türmen, who was initially a member of the Grand Chamber constituted to examine the case, was unable to attend the hearing. He was replaced by Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, substitute judge, as a member of the Grand Chamber (Rule 24 § 5 (b)).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There appeared before the Court:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 25.0px; text-indent: -25.0px;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(a) </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">for the Government</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mrs V. DJIDJEVA, Ministry of Justice, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Agent</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">;</span></span></div></span><br />
<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 25.0px; text-indent: -25.0px;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(b) </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">for the applicants</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Y. GROZEV, Lawyer, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Counsel</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></div></span><br />
<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicants were also present. The Court heard addresses by </span><span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Grozev and Mrs Djidjeva.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr M. Fischbach, who was initially a member of the Grand Chamber in the present case, was unable to take part in its examination after the hearing. He was replaced by Mr E. Levits, substitute judge.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">THE FACTS</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A. THE APPLICANTS</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Mr Fikri Sali Hasan (“the first applicant”) was Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims from 1992 until the events complained of. Mr Ismail Ahmed Chaush (“the second applicant”) was formerly a teacher at the Islamic Institute in Sofia.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In his submissions to the Court the second applicant stated that from February 1995 he had also worked on a part-time basis as secretary to the Chief Mufti's Office (Главно мюфтийство), the national leadership of the Muslim religious organisation, and editor of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Musulmanin</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, its newspaper. The Government disputed these assertions.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">B. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10. At the end of 1989 a process of democratisation commenced in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Soon thereafter some Muslim believers and activists of the Muslim religion in the country sought to replace the leadership of their religious organisation. They considered that Mr Gendzhev, who was the Chief Mufti at that time, and the members of the Supreme Holy Council (Висш духовен съвет) had collaborated with the communist regime. The old leadership, with Mr Gendzhev as Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, also had supporters. This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Muslim community in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11. Following general elections held in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> in October 1991 a new government, formed by the Union of Democratic Forces (СДС) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (ДПС), took office towards the end of 1991.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On 10 February 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations (Дирекция по вероизповеданията), a governmental agency attached to the Council of Ministers, declared the election of Mr Gendzhev in 1988 as Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims null and void and proclaimed his removal from that position. On 21 February 1992 the Directorate registered a three-member Interim Holy Council as a temporary governing body of the Muslims' religious organisation, pending the election of a new permanent leadership by a national conference of all Muslims.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">12. Following these events Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, challenged the decision of 10 February 1992 before the Supreme Court. On 28 April 1992 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. The court found that the decision of the Directorate of Religious Denominations was not subject to judicial appeal. The ensuing petition for review, submitted by Mr Gendzhev against the Supreme Court's decision, was examined by a five-member Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 7 April 1993 the Chamber dismissed the petition. While confirming the rejection of Mr Gendzhev's appeal, the Chamber also discussed the merits of the appeal. It found, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, that the Directorate's decision to declare Mr Gendzhev's election null and void had been within its competence. In so far as the impugned decision had also proclaimed “the removal” of Mr Gendzhev from his position of Chief Mufti, this had been </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ultra vires</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. However, it was unnecessary to annul this part of the Directorate's decision as in any event it had no legal consequences.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">13. The National Conference of Muslims, organised by the interim leadership, took place on 19 September 1992. It elected Mr Fikri Sali Hasan (the first applicant) as Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims and also approved a new Statute of the Religious Organisation of Muslims in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> (Устав за духовното устройство и управление на мюсюлманите в България). On 1 October 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations registered the statute and the new leadership in accordance with sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">C. EVENTS OF 1994 AND EARLY 1995</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">14. While the leadership dispute between Mr Gendzhev and Mr Hasan continued, the official position of the Directorate of Religious Denominations, throughout 1993 and at least the first half of 1994, remained that the first applicant was the legitimate Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">15. On 29 July 1994 the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote a letter to Mr Hasan urging him to organise a national conference of all Muslims to solve certain problems arising from irregularities in the election of local religious leaders. The irregularities in question apparently concerned alleged inconsistencies with the internal statute of the Muslim religious organisation, and not breaches of the law.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">16. On 2 November 1994 the supporters of Mr Gendzhev held a national conference. The conference proclaimed itself the legitimate representative of Muslim believers, elected an alternative leadership and adopted a statute. Mr Gendzhev was elected President of the Supreme Holy Council. After the conference the newly elected leaders applied to the Directorate of Religious Denominations for registration as the legitimate leadership of the Bulgarian Muslims.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">17. On 3 January 1995 the Supreme Holy Council presided over by the first applicant decided to convene a national conference on 28 January 1995.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">18. At the end of 1994, parliamentary elections took place in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. The Bulgarian Socialist Party (БСП) obtained a majority in Parliament and formed a new government, which took office in January 1995.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">19. On 16 January 1995 the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote a letter to the first applicant in his capacity of Chief Mufti urging him to postpone the conference. The letter stated, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> :</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“As the Directorate of Religious Denominations was concerned with [the] irregularities [as regards the election of local muftis] as early as the middle of 1994, it repeatedly ... urged the rapid resolution of the problems ... Unfortunately no specific measures were undertaken ... As a result the conflicts in the religious community deepened, and discontent among Muslims increased, leading to the holding of an extraordinary national conference on 2 November 1994. This brought to light a new problem, related to the shortcomings of the statute of the Muslim religious community... [The statute] does not clarify the procedure for convening a national conference ... Issues concerning the participants, and the manner in which they are chosen ..., are not regulated.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, for the executive branch of the State it becomes legally impossible to decide whether the national conference is in conformity with the statute [of the Muslim religion] and, accordingly, whether its decisions are valid. These decisions, quite understandably, could be challenged by some of the Muslims in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Any other national conference, except one organised by a joint committee [of the rival leaderships], would raise the same problem. Moreover, the decision of 3 January 1995 of the Supreme Holy Council to hold an extraordinary national conference on 28 January 1995 is signed only by six legitimate members of the Holy Council... [and] ... cannot be regarded as being in conformity with the statute.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Directorate of Religious Denominations cannot disregard the findings of the [Chamber of the] Supreme Court in its decision of 7 [April] 1993. It is mentioned therein that the Directorate had acted </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ultra vires</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> when removing Mr Gendzhev from his position of Chief Mufti and that the decision of the Directorate of 10 February 1992 could not have legal consequences.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Extremely worried as regards the current situation and deeply concerned over the well-being of the Muslims in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, the Directorate of Religious Denominations supports the opinion of the Chief Mufti [the first applicant] that it is not advisable to rush ahead with the holding of an extraordinary conference before overcoming the conflicts in the religious community ...</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Firmly convinced that the disputed questions in the religious community should not be decided by administrative means by the executive branch of the State ... the Directorate appeals to you to show good will and reach a consensus for the holding of a united conference ...”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">20. On 27 January 1995 the Supreme Holy Council presided over by Mr Hasan announced that it had postponed the national conference until 6 March 1995.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">D. REMOVAL OF THE FIRST APPLICANT FROM HIS POSITION OF CHIEF MUFTI</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">21. On 22 February 1995 Mr Shivarov, Deputy Prime Minister of </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, issued Decree R-12, which reads as follows:</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“In accordance with Decree KV-15 of 6 February 1995 of the Council of Ministers read in conjunction with section 6 of the Religious Denominations Act, I approve the statute of the Muslim religion in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, based in Sofia.”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">22. The statute of the Muslim religion in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> mentioned in the decree was apparently the one adopted at the rival national conference, organised by Mr Gendzhev and held on 2 November 1994. Decree KV-15, referred to in Decree R-12, determined that Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov should be in charge of supervising the activity of the Directorate of Religious Denominations.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">23. On 23 February 1995 the Directorate of Religious Denominations of the Council of Ministers issued a decision which stated that, in accordance with sections 6, </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act and Decree R-12 of the Deputy Prime Minister, it had registered a new leadership of the Bulgarian Muslim community. The leadership thus registered included Mr Gendzhev as President of the Supreme Holy Council and, apparently, those elected at the conference of 2 November 1994.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">24. Neither Decree R-12 nor the decision of the Directorate of Religious Denominations gave any reasons or any explanation regarding the procedure followed. The decisions were not formally served on Mr Hasan, who learned about them from the press.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">25. On 27 February 1995 the newly registered leadership of the Muslim community accompanied by private security guards entered the premises of the Chief Mufti's Office in Sofia, forcibly evicted the staff working there, and occupied the building. The applicants submit that the police, who arrived after the surprise action, immediately stepped in to protect the new occupants of the building. Following the action of 27 February 1995 the new leadership took over all documents and assets belonging to the religious organisation of Bulgarian Muslims in Sofia and, in the months which followed, in various other towns in the country. The Directorate of Religious Denominations allegedly sent letters to the banks where the Muslim religious organisation had its accounts, informing them of the change of leadership. In the following weeks several municipalities, allegedly upon the instructions of the Directorate, registered new regional muftis. Also, the staff of the Chief Mufti's Office and ten Islamic teachers, the second applicant among them, were allegedly dismissed </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">de facto</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> as they were prevented from continuing their work.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">26. On 27 February 1995, immediately after the take-over, the first applicant submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Главна прокуратура) a request for assistance, stating that there had been an unlawful mob action and that the persons who had occupied the building of the Chief Mufti's Office were squatters who had to be evicted. By decisions of 8 and 28 March 1995 the prosecuting authorities refused to take action. They found, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, that the new occupants of the building had legal grounds to stay there as they were duly registered by the Directorate of Religious Denominations and represented the religious leadership of the Muslim community in the country.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">E. THE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST DECREE R-12</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">27. On 23 March 1995, apparently in reply to a request from the first applicant, the Directorate of Religious Denominations sent him, in his capacity as a private person, a letter which stated, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">:</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“The Muslim religious community in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> ... has, in 1888, 1891, 1919, 1949, 1986, 1992 and 1995, repeatedly changed its statute as concerns its organisational structure ..., but never as regards its religious foundation. Decree R-12 of 22 February 1995 ... sanctions an [organisational] change, which the religious community itself wished to undertake ...”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This letter was apparently the first document originating from the competent State bodies which implied clearly that the statute of the Muslim religious community approved by Decree R-12 had replaced the previous statute and that the new registered leadership had replaced the first applicant.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">28. On 18 April 1995 the first applicant, acting on behalf of the Chief Mufti's Office which he headed, lodged an appeal against Decree R-12 with the Supreme Court. He stated that, on the face of it, Decree R-12 stipulated nothing more than the registration of a new religious organisation. However, from the decisions and the letter of the Directorate of Religious Denominations which had followed, it had become clear that what had taken place was the replacement of the statute and the leadership of an existing religious denomination. Furthermore, it transpired that the motivation behind this act had been the understanding that the Muslim religion in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> could have only one leadership and one statute. The State did not have the right to impose such a view on Muslims, multiple religious organisations of one and the same religion being normal in other countries, as in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Therefore the Council of Ministers had acted beyond its powers. The resulting interference in the internal disputes of the Muslim religious community was unlawful. At the oral hearing held by the Supreme Court the first applicant also stated that there had been an unlawful interference with Muslims' religious liberties, as enshrined in the Constitution.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">29. The first applicant also submitted that the conference of 2 November 1994 had been organised by people outside the Muslim religious organisation over which he presided. Accordingly, they could register their own religious organisation but could not claim to replace the leadership of another. The second applicant asked the Supreme Court either to declare Decree R-12 null and void as being against the law, or to declare that it constituted the registration of a new religious community, the existing Muslim organisation being unaffected.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">30. On 27 July 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court stated that under the Religious Denominations Act the Council of Ministers enjoyed full discretion in its decision as to whether or not to register the statute of a given religion. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was therefore limited to an examination of whether the impugned decision had been issued by the competent administrative organ and whether the procedural requirements had been complied with. In that respect Decree R-12 was lawful. As regards the request for interpretation of Decree R-12, it was not open to the Supreme Court, in the framework of those particular proceedings, to state its opinion as to whether it had the effect of creating a new legal person, or introducing changes, and whether after this decision there existed two parallel Muslim religious organisations.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 36.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -20.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">F. THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF 6 MARCH 1995 AND THE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' REFUSAL TO REGISTER ITS DECISIONS</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">31. The national conference of Muslims in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> organised by Mr Hasan took place as planned on 6 March 1995. The minutes of the conference establish that it was attended by 1,553 persons, of whom 1,188 were official delegates with voting rights. These were representatives of eleven local chapters and of the central leadership. The conference adopted some amendments of the statute of the Muslim community and elected its leadership. The first applicant was re-elected Chief Mufti.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">32. On 5 June 1995 the first applicant, acting as Chief Mufti, submitted a petition to the Council of Ministers requesting the registration of the new statute and leadership of Muslims in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, as adopted by the conference of 6 March 1995. On 6 October 1995 he repeated the request. However, there was no response from the Council of Ministers.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">33. On an unspecified date the first applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the tacit refusal of the Council of Ministers to register the decisions of the March 1995 conference.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">34. On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. It noted that in 1992 the Chief Mufti's Office as represented by Mr Hasan had been duly registered as a religious denomination under section 6 of the Religious Denominations Act and had thus obtained legal personality of which it had not been subsequently deprived. Therefore the Council of Ministers was under an obligation, pursuant to sections 6 and 16 of the Act, to examine a request for registration of a new statute or of changes in the leadership in the existing religious denomination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the tacit refusal of the Council of Ministers had been unlawful and ordered the transmission of the file to the Council of Ministers, which was required to examine it.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">35. On 19 November 1996 Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov refused to register the 1995 statute and leadership of the Chief Mufti's Office as represented by Mr Hasan. He sent him a letter stating, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, that the Council of Ministers had already registered a leadership of the Muslim community in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, which was that elected by the November 1994 conference with Mr Gendzhev as President of the Supreme Holy Council. The Deputy Prime Minister concluded that the first applicant's request “[could not] be granted as it [was] clearly contrary to the provisions of the Religious Denominations Act”.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">36. On 5 December 1996 the first applicant, acting as Chief Mufti, appealed to the Supreme Court against the refusal of the Deputy Prime Minister.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37. On 13 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed that refusal on the ground that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution. The refusal constituted “an unlawful administrative intervention into the internal organisation of [a] religious community”. The Supreme Court again ordered the transmission of the file to the Council of Ministers for registration.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38. Despite these Supreme Court judgments the Council of Ministers did not grant registration to the religious leadership headed by Mr Hasan.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">G. THE 1997 UNIFICATION CONFERENCE AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">39. In February 1997 the government of the Bulgarian Socialist Party stepped down and an interim cabinet was appointed. At the general elections which followed in April 1997 the Union of Democratic Forces obtained a majority in Parliament and formed a new government.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">40. On 24 March 1997 the first applicant again requested the Council of Ministers to register the 1995 statute and leadership. There followed informal contacts between the Muslim leadership of Mr Hasan and representatives of the government. The applicants were allegedly told that the government would only agree to register a new leadership of the Muslims if it was elected at a unification conference.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">41. The Directorate of Religious Denominations urged the two rival leaderships of Mr Hasan and of Mr Gendzhev to negotiate a solution. On 12 September 1997 the leadership headed by Mr Hasan decided to accept the holding of a unification conference under certain conditions. A five-member contact group was appointed to hold negotiations. On 30 September 1997 representatives of the two rival leaderships signed an agreement to convene a national conference of all Muslim believers on 23 October 1997. The agreement, which was also signed by Deputy Prime Minister Metodiev and the Director of Religious Denominations, provided, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, that the parties would not obstruct the unification process, failing which the Directorate would take appropriate administrative measures. In addition, the leadership of Mr Gendzhev undertook not to dispose of any Muslim property or assets before the conference.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">42. The Directorate of Religious Denominations took an active part in organising the national conference. The mayors in many localities distributed to the local chapters forms bearing the seal of the Directorate. These forms were filled out at the meetings of the local chapters which elected delegates to the national conference and were certified by the mayors' signatures.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">43. On 23 October 1997, 1,384 delegates attended the conference. Only delegates whose election had been certified by the mayors were allowed to participate. The conference adopted a new statute of the Muslim denomination in </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and elected a new leadership comprising members of the leadership of Mr Hasan and others. Mr Hasan apparently attended the conference and approved of the new leadership. Six leaders of the group led by him were elected to the new Supreme Holy Council. Mr Hasan was not among them. On 28 October 1997 the government registered the newly elected leadership.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">44. Although the religious community which accepted Mr Gendzhev's authority was involved in the unification process, Mr Gendzhev himself and some of his supporters did not sign the agreement of 30 September 1997 and did not attend the conference, considering that it was manipulated by the State. The conference voted a resolution authorising the new leadership to conduct an audit and seek the prosecution of Mr Gendzhev for alleged unlawful transactions.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">45. Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained the Chief Mufti, appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Върховен административен съд) against the government's decision to register the new leadership. By a judgment of 16 July 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal as being inadmissible. It found that the Chief Mufti's Office of Mr Gendzhev had no </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">locus standi</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> to lodge an appeal as it had never been validly registered. Decree R-12 of 22 February 1995 had been signed by Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov, who had not been duly authorised by the Council of Ministers. Decree KV-15 did not contain an express authorisation for the Deputy Prime Minister to approve the statutes of religious denominations. As a result the Chief Mufti's Office of Mr Gendzhev had never legally existed and all its acts between 1995 and 1997 were null and void.</span></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">46. The relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution read as follows:</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 26px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Article 13</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“(1) Religions shall be free.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(2) Religious institutions shall be separate from the State.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(3) Eastern Orthodox Christianity shall be considered the traditional religion in the Republic of </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(4) Religious institutions and communities, and religious beliefs shall not be used for political ends.”</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 26px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Article 37</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“(1) The freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and the choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The State shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations, and between believers and non-believers.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(2) The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">47. The Constitutional Court's judgment no. 5 of 11 June 1992 provides a legally binding interpretation of the above provisions. It states, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, that the State must not interfere with the internal organisation of religious communities and institutions, which must be regulated by their own statutes and rules. The State may interfere with the activity of a religious community or institution only in the cases contemplated in Articles 13 § 4 and 37 § 2 of the Constitution. An assessment as to whether there is such a case may also be undertaken at the time of registration of a religious community or institution.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">48. The Religious Denominations Act came into force in 1949 and has been amended several times since then. The relevant provisions of the Act, as in force at the time of the events at issue, read as follows.</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 26px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Section 6</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“(1) A religious denomination shall be considered recognised and shall become a legal person upon the approval of its statute by the Council of Ministers, or by a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(2) The Council of Ministers, or a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose, shall revoke the recognition, by a reasoned decision, if the activities of the religious denomination breach the law, public order or morals.”</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 26px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Section </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“(1) Every religious denomination shall have a leadership accountable to the State.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(2) The statute of the religious denomination shall establish its governing and representative bodies and the procedure for their election and appointment ...”</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 26px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Section 16</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“(1) The national governing bodies of the religious denominations shall register with the Directorate of Religious Denominations of the Council of Ministers, and local governing bodies with the local municipalities, and they shall submit a list of the names of all members of these governing bodies.”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">49. The Act also lays down rules regarding the activities of a religious denomination, imposes requirements as regards its clergy and gives the Directorate of Religious Denominations certain supervisory functions. In its judgment no. 5 of 11 June 1992 the Constitutional Court, while agreeing that certain provisions of the Religious Denominations Act were clearly unconstitutional, found that it was not its task to repeal legal provisions adopted prior to the entry into force of the 1991 Constitution, the ordinary courts being competent to declare them inapplicable.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">50. The applicants contended that as a consequence of the provisions of section 6 of the Act, and since there is no public register for recognised religious denominations, in practice a religious community can establish its existence as a legal entity only by producing a copy of a letter or a decision to that effect issued by the Directorate of Religious Denominations. The same applies to the leader of a religious denomination when he needs to provide accreditation.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">51. Under Decree no. 125 of the Council of Ministers of 6 December 1990, as amended, the competence of the Directorate of Religious Denominations includes “contacts between the State and religions denominations”, assistance to central and local administrative authorities in solving problems which involve religious matters and assistance to religious organisations as regards education and publications.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">52. There are no procedural provisions under Bulgarian law specifically applicable to the examination by the Council of Ministers, or by a deputy prime minister, of a petition for authorisation of a religious denomination. Section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act (Закон за административното производство), which contains a general legal regime on the procedure for the issuing of and appeal against administrative decisions, provides that the Act is not applicable as regards decisions of the Council of Ministers.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">THE LAW</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">53. Before the Court the Government maintained that the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, regard being had to the fact that the domestic judicial appeals had been submitted by the first applicant on behalf of the Chief Mufti's Office, and not in his individual capacity.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicants stated that they had no standing to institute proceedings in their individual capacity. The only possibility was an appeal on behalf of the community. Furthermore, the appeals on behalf of the Chief Mufti's Office had proved to be ineffective. The applicants referred to their complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">54. The Court reiterates that objections of the kind now made by the Government should be raised before the admissibility of the application is considered (see, among other authorities, the Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 31, § 57; the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 13-14, § 27; and </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Brumărescu v. Romania</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 52-53, ECHR 1999-VII). However, the Government's objection was first raised on 25 August 1998, after the Commission's decision declaring the application admissible (see paragraph 12 of the Commission's report of 26 October 1999). There is, therefore, estoppel.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> OF THE CONVENTION</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">55. The applicants complained that the alleged forced replacement of the leadership of the Muslim religious community in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> in 1995 and the ensuing events up to October 1997 had given rise to a violation of their rights under Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention. Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> reads as follows:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(A) THE APPLICANTS</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">56. The applicants maintained that the right to manifest one's religion in community with others meant that the community should be allowed to organise itself according to its own rules. In their view any interference in the internal life of the organisation was a matter of concern not only to the organisation but also to every person who belonged to the religious community and, in particular, to those directly involved in the religious or organisational leadership.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicants stated that for a religious community the organisational structure was not simply a form of their existence, but had a substantive meaning. The identity of the leaders of the community was crucial, history abounding with examples of religious leaders converting believers or founding new religions. No less important for the individual believer was the way in which the organisation managed its places of worship and its property.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicants were thus of the opinion that the alleged forced removal of the leadership of their religious community concerned their individual rights protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention, the more so given the first applicant's position of Chief Mufti and the second applicant's involvement in the life of the community.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(B) THE GOVERNMENT</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">57. The Government maintained that in the Convention organs' practice an application submitted in terms of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> together with other provisions of the Convention would normally be examined under the other provisions relied on. They therefore concentrated in their memorial on Article 11 of the Convention. In their view not every act motivated by religious belief could constitute a manifestation of religion, within the meaning of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">58. The Government further submitted that in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> freedom of religion was guaranteed by the Constitution. Religious institutions being independent, the State had a duty to maintain a climate of tolerance and mutual respect between them without interfering in their internal organisational life. Thus, the Muslim religion was officially registered under the Religious Denominations Act. Muslim believers attended more than 1,000 mosques in the country. They had several religious schools and a newspaper, and maintained international contacts freely.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Against that background the Government asserted that the facts relied on by the applicants had no bearing on their right to practise their religion, individually or collectively, in private or in public, to observe religious holidays, or to teach in schools.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(C) THE COMMISSION</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">59. The Commission considered that the organisation of a religious community was an important part of religious life and that participation therein is a manifestation of one's religion. The applicants' complaints therefore fell within the ambit of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">60. The Court recalls that freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Serif v. Greece</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, no. 38178/97, § 49, ECHR 1999-IX, and the Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, pp. 17-18, §§ 31 and 33).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, freedom to manifest one's religion, alone and in private, or in community with others, in public and within the circle of those whose faith one shares. Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> lists a number of forms which manifestation of one's religion or belief may take, namely worship, teaching, practice and observance. Nevertheless, Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> does not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief (see the Kalaç v. Turkey judgment of 1 July 1997,</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Reports of Judgments and Decisions </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1997-IV, p. 1209, § 27).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">61. In the present case the parties differ on the question whether or not the events under consideration, which all relate to the organisation and leadership of the Muslim community in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, concern the right of the individual applicants to freedom to manifest their religion and, consequently, whether or not Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention applies. The applicants maintained that their religious liberties were at stake, whereas the Government analysed the complaints mainly from the angle of Article 11 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">62. The Court recalls that religious communities traditionally and universally exist in the form of organised structures. They abide by rules which are often seen by followers as being of a divine origin. Religious ceremonies have their meaning and sacred value for the believers if they have been conducted by ministers empowered for that purpose in compliance with these rules. The personality of the religious ministers is undoubtedly of importance to every member of the community. Participation in the life of the community is thus a manifestation of one's religion, protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of Article 11, which safeguards associative life against unjustified State interference. Seen in this perspective, the believers' right to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function peacefully, free from arbitrary State intervention. Indeed, the autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> affords. It directly concerns not only the organisation of the community as such but also the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion by all its active members. Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention, all other aspects of the individual's freedom of religion would become vulnerable.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">63. There is no doubt, in the present case, that the applicants are active members of the religious community. The first applicant was an elected Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims. The Court need not establish whether the second applicant, who used to work as an Islamic teacher, was also employed as a secretary to the Chief Mufti's Office, it being undisputed that Mr Chaush is a Muslim believer who actively participated in religious life at the relevant time.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">64. It follows that the events complained of concerned both applicants' right to freedom of religion, as enshrined in Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention. That provision is therefore applicable.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">65. Further, the Court does not consider that the case is better dealt with solely under Article 11 of the Convention, as suggested by the Government. Such an approach would take the applicants' complaints out of their context and disregard their substance.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court finds, therefore, that the applicants' complaints fall to be examined under Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention. In so far as they touch upon the organisation of the religious community, the Court reiterates that Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> must be interpreted in the light of the protection afforded by Article 11 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">B. COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(A) THE APPLICANTS</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">66. The applicants contended that the State authorities had interfered twice with the organisational life of the Muslim community. Firstly, in February 1995, they had replaced the legitimate leadership of the community led by the first applicant and then, in the following years, they had refused recognition of the re-elected leadership of the first applicant.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the applicants' view the measures undertaken by the State had profound consequences and amounted to replacement of the whole organisational structure of the Muslim community and a complete destruction of normal community life. All income was frozen, offices were seized by force, control over mosques was transferred, and any use of the communities' documents and property by the leadership of the first applicant was made impossible. Mr Hasan was thus compelled to continue his activities as head of the second largest religious community in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> “from the street, with zero financial resources”. Moreover, following the registration in February 1995 by the Directorate of Religious Denominations of Mr Gendzhev's leadership, no court, government body or indeed no person would recognise Mr Hasan as a legitimate representative of the Muslim believers.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">67. The applicants further maintained that State interference with the internal affairs of the religious community had not been based on clear legal rules. They considered that the law in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, in matters concerning religious communities, did not provide clarity and guarantees against abuse of administrative discretion. In their view the relations between the State and religious communities in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> were governed not by law, but by politics. Indeed, the replacement of the leadership of the Muslim religious community had curiously coincided with the change of government in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The relevant law, which had remained unchanged since the events complained of, provided for a discretionary power of the government to change religious leaderships at will. In the absence of a clear procedure in this respect or a public register of the by-laws and the representation of religious denominations, the system of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ad hoc </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">letters, issued by the Directorate of Religious Denominations to confirm the representation of the community to interested third parties and even to courts, created vast opportunities for arbitrary exercise of powers. In the applicant's view the authorities had failed in their duty to enact an adequate legal framework in this respect.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">68. The applicants further claimed that Decree R-12 was in breach of the relevant law as it sanctioned a leadership which had not been elected in accordance with the statute and the by-laws of the Muslim community. These rules provided for a procedure for the election of leaders at a national conference convened by decision of the Supreme Holy Council, the Chief Mufti, and the Control Commission. Having recognised these rules in 1992, the authorities should not have registered leaders elected in breach thereof.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, in the applicants' view the replacement of the leadership had been achieved through arbitrary decrees which gave no reasons and had been issued without the parties concerned even being informed. The refusal of the Council of Ministers to comply with two judgments of the Supreme Court had been another arbitrary interference with the internal life of the community. The prosecuting authorities' refusal to intervene and remedy what the applicants saw as a blatant criminal act, namely the forcible eviction of the first applicant and the staff from the building of the Chief Mufti's Office on 27 February 1995 had also been a clear breach of domestic law.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">69. The applicants further asserted that the interference with their rights under Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention had no legitimate aim. It could not be argued seriously that the government's purpose was to ensure clarity as to the representation of the Muslim religious community. Its actions at the material time had replaced one leadership of the community with another.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(B) THE GOVERNMENT</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">70. The Government submitted that there had not been any interference with the applicants' rights under Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention. The acts of the Directorate of Religious Denominations were of a declarative nature. They did not give rise to rights and obligations and consequently were not capable of affecting the legal rights of others. According to the Court's case-law a registration requirement in religious matters was not as such incompatible with the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">71. In the Government's view nothing prevented the applicants from freely participating in the organisation of the Muslim community during the period of time under consideration. There was no evidence that the applicants could not hold meetings or could not be elected to the leadership of the Muslim community. Indeed, on 6 March 1995 they had freely organised a new national conference at which the first applicant had been re-elected Chief Mufti. The fact that there was another national conference, that of 2 November 1994, which elected other leaders, could not be imputed to the State. It had been an expression of the free exercise of the right to freedom of association.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, in the Government's view, it was not the State that had replaced the first applicant as Chief Mufti, but the independent will of the Muslim believers. In fact, Mr Hasan did not meet the age and qualification requirements for the position of Chief Mufti, as provided for in the statute of the Muslim religion in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">72. The Government also submitted that the State had continued to pay subsidies to the Muslim community. The question of who managed these funds had been decided freely by the community. The Government further rejected as unsubstantiated and ill-founded the first applicant's allegation that he could not address the faithful through the media on the occasion of religious holidays, the media being free and independent from the State. In the Government's view all complaints concerning the alleged indirect effects of the registration of another leadership were ill-founded.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">73. In the Government's opinion the applicants were pursuing their own personal career by falsely presenting before the Court the events complained of as involving human rights issues. If their logic was followed, every leader of a religious community who had lost the confidence of the believers could lodge an application. That would create a dangerous precedent. The Government urged the Court to distance itself from such essentially political disputes. They reiterated that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had noted the progress made in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> in respect of religious freedoms and informed the Court that a new law on religious denominations was being drafted.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(C) THE COMMISSION</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">74. The Commission found unanimously that there had been an unlawful State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community and the applicants' right to freedom of religion.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(A) WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN AN INTERFERENCE</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">75. The Court must examine whether there has been State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community and, consequently, with the applicants' right to freedom of religion.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">76. The Government's position was entirely based on the assertion that the impugned acts of the Directorate of Religious Denominations could not be regarded as an interference with the internal organisation of the community as they had been of a purely declaratory nature and had constituted nothing more than an administrative registration. The applicants alleged that these acts had had serious legal and practical consequences and had been aimed directly at removing the legitimate leadership of the Muslim community and replacing it by leaders politically associated with the government of the day.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">77. The Court does not deem it necessary to decide </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">in abstracto</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> whether acts of formal registration of religious communities and changes in their leadership constitute an interference with the rights protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">78. Nevertheless, the Court considers, like the Commission, that facts demonstrating a failure by the authorities to remain neutral in the exercise of their powers in this domain must lead to the conclusion that the State interfered with the believers' freedom to manifest their religion within the meaning of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention. It recalls that, but for very exceptional cases, the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Convention excludes any discretion on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate. State action favouring one leader of a divided religious community or undertaken with the purpose of forcing the community to come together under a single leadership against its own wishes would likewise constitute an interference with freedom of religion. In democratic societies the State does not need to take measures to ensure that religious communities are brought under a unified leadership (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Serif</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">,</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">cited above, § 52).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">79. In the present case the Court notes that by virtue of Decree R-12 and the decision of the Directorate of Religious Denominations of 23 February 1995 the executive branch of government in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> proclaimed changes in the leadership and statute of the Muslim religious community. No reasons were given for this decision. There was no explanation why preference was to be given to the leaders elected at the national conference of 2 November 1994, which was organised by Mr Gendzhev's followers, and not to the first applicant, who had the support of another part of the community, as evidenced by the results of the national conference held on 6 March 1995.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court further observes that in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> the legitimacy and representation powers of the leadership of a religious denomination are certified by the Directorate of Religious Denominations. The first applicant was thus deprived of his representation powers in law and in practice by virtue of the impugned decisions of February 1995. He was refused assistance by the prosecuting authorities against the forced eviction from the offices of the Chief Mufti precisely on the ground that Decree R-12 proclaimed another person as the Chief Mufti. He was apparently not able to retain control over at least part of the property belonging to the community, although Mr Hasan undoubtedly had the support of a significant proportion of its members. The impugned decisions thus clearly had the effect of putting an end to the first applicant's functions as Chief Mufti, removing the hitherto recognised leadership of the religious community and disallowing its statute and by-laws.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The resulting situation remained unchanged throughout 1996 and until October 1997 as the authorities repeatedly refused to give effect to the decisions of the national conference organised by the first applicant on 6 March 1995.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">80. It is true that in its judgments of 14 October 1996 and 13 March 1997 the Supreme Court implicitly refused to accept that the registration of a new leadership of the divided religious community had the effect of removing the previously recognised leadership of the rival faction. It therefore found that the Council of Ministers was under an obligation to examine the first applicant's request for registration of a new statute. However, those judgments did not have any practical effect, the Council of Ministers having refused to comply with them.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">81. The Government's argument that nothing prevented the first applicant and those supporting him from organising meetings is not an answer to the applicants' grievances. It cannot be seriously maintained that any State action short of restricting the freedom of assembly could not amount to an interference with the rights protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention even though it adversely affected the internal life of the religious community.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">82. The Court therefore finds, like the Commission, that Decree R-12, the decision of the Directorate of Religious Denominations of 23 February 1995, and the subsequent refusal of the Council of Ministers to recognise the existence of the organisation led by Mr Hasan were more than acts of routine registration or of correcting past irregularities. Their effect was to favour one faction of the Muslim community, granting it the status of the single official leadership, to the complete exclusion of the hitherto recognised leadership. The acts of the authorities operated, in law and in practice, to deprive the excluded leadership of any possibility of continuing to represent at least part of the Muslim community and of managing its affairs according to the will of that part of the community.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There was therefore an interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim religious community and with the applicants' right to freedom of religion as protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">83. Such an interference entails a violation of that provision unless it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of a legitimate aim (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 27417/95, §§ 75 and 84, ECHR 2000-VII).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(B) WHETHER THE INTERFERENCE WAS JUSTIFIED</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">84. The Court reiterates its settled case-law according to which the expressions “prescribed by law” and “in accordance with the law” in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only require that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refer to the quality of the law in question. The law should be both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual – if need be with appropriate advice – to regulate his conduct (see the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sunday Times</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49; the Larissis and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 February 1998, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reports</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 1998-I, p. 378, § 40; </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; and </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rotaru v. Romania</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For domestic law to meet these requirements it must afford a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interferences by public authorities with the rights safeguarded by the Convention. In matters affecting fundamental rights it would be contrary to the rule of law, one of the basic principles of a democratic society enshrined in the Convention, for a legal discretion granted to the executive to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power. Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rotaru</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, cited above, § 55).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The level of precision required of domestic legislation – which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality – depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hashman and Harrup</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, cited above, § 31, and the Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, § 68).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">85. The Court notes that in the present case the relevant law does not provide for any substantive criteria on the basis of which the Council of Ministers and the Directorate of Religious Denominations register religious denominations and changes of their leadership in a situation of internal divisions and conflicting claims for legitimacy. Moreover, there are no procedural safeguards, such as adversarial proceedings before an independent body, against arbitrary exercise of the discretion left to the executive.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, Decree R-12 and the decision of the Directorate were never notified to those directly affected. These acts were not reasoned and were unclear to the extent that they did not even mention the first applicant, although they were intended to, and indeed did, remove him from his position as Chief Mufti.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court has already found that these acts and the subsequent refusal of the Council of Ministers to recognise the leadership of Mr Hasan had the effect of arbitrarily favouring one faction of the divided religious community. It is noteworthy in this context that the replacement of the community's leadership in 1995, as well as in 1992 and 1997, occurred shortly after a change of government.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">86. The Court finds, therefore, that the interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community and the applicants' freedom of religion was not “prescribed by law” in that it was arbitrary and was based on legal provisions which allowed an unfettered discretion to the executive and did not meet the required standards of clarity and foreseeability.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">87. The Court further agrees with the Commission that the repeated refusal of the Council of Ministers to comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court of 1996 and 1997 was a clearly unlawful act of particular gravity. The rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all Articles of the Convention and entails a duty on the part of the State and any public authority to comply with judicial orders or decisions against it (see the Hornsby v. Greece judgment of 19 March 1997, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reports</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 1997-II, pp. 510-11, §§ 40-41, and </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Iatridis </span></i><span style="font: 14.0px 'Lucida Grande';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">v. Greece</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">88. In view of these findings the Court deems it unnecessary to continue the examination of the applicants' complaints in respect of the “legitimate aim” and “necessary in a democratic society” requirements. Such an examination can only be undertaken if the aim of the interference is clearly defined in domestic law.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">89. There has, therefore, been a violation of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">90. The applicants complained that the State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim religious community also violated their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The Government denied that the Muslim community was an “association” and maintained that in any event there had not been any State interference with rights protected by that Article. The Commission considered that it was not necessary to examine the applicants' complaints under Article 11 of the Convention separately.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">91. The Court, like the Commission, considers that no separate issue arises under Article 11 of the Convention. It has already dealt with the complaint concerning State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim religious community under Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11 (see paragraphs 62 and 65 above).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">92. The applicants complained that they did not have an effective remedy against the interference with their right to freedom of religion. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">93. The applicants submitted, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">inter alia</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, that the procedure before the Supreme Court, which ended with a judgment of 27 July 1995, was not an effective remedy. Although the Supreme Court could have granted appropriate relief by quashing Decree R-12, it had chosen not to deal with the applicants' arguments on the merits. This had been the consequence of what the applicants described as “the doctrine of full discretion”. In the applicants' submission the Bulgarian Supreme Court had repeatedly adhered to the position that in numerous areas the executive enjoyed full discretion which was not subject to judicial review.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">94. The Government replied that the applicants had not instituted any proceedings in their capacity as individuals. In these circumstances they could not claim </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">in abstracto</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> that the law did not guarantee effective remedies.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the Government's view the applicants could have requested the institution of criminal proceedings under Articles 164 and 165 of the Criminal Code, which concern hate speech and impeding the free manifestation of religion through force or duress.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">95. The Commission considered that the applicants did not have an effective remedy and that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">96. The Court recalls that Article 13 guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention. Such a remedy must allow the competent domestic authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they discharge their obligations under Article 13. The remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Çakıcı v. Turkey</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 23657/94, § 112, ECHR 1999-IV).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">97. In the present case the Court has found that the applicants' rights under Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention were infringed. They therefore had an arguable claim within the meaning of the Court's case-law.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">98. The Court further considers that the scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the Convention right relied on. Like the Commission, it takes the view that in the context of the present case Article 13 cannot be seen as requiring a possibility for every believer, such as the second applicant, to institute in his individual capacity formal proceedings challenging a decision concerning the registration of his religious community's leadership. Individual believers' interests in this respect can be safeguarded by their turning to their leaders and supporting any legal action which the latter may initiate.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">99. The Court thus finds that in such a case the State's obligation under Article 13 may well be discharged by the provision of remedies which are only accessible to representatives of the religious community aggrieved by a State interference with its internal organisation. In the present case the first applicant, Mr Hasan, was the leader of the faction of the Muslim organisation which was replaced through the State decisions complained of. The Court will therefore examine whether effective remedies existed for the first applicant in his capacity as religious leader.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">100. The Court observes that Mr Hasan, acting as Chief Mufti, attempted to obtain a remedy against the interference with the internal organisation of the religious community by challenging Decree R-12 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not question Mr Hasan's </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">locus standi</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and accepted the case for examination. A representative of the religious community was thus provided access to a judicial remedy.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, the Supreme Court refused to study the substantive issues, considering that the Council of Ministers enjoyed full discretion whether or not to register the statute and leadership of a religious denomination, and only ruled on the formal question whether Decree R-12 was issued by the competent body.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The appeal to the Supreme Court against Decree R-12 was not, therefore, an effective remedy.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">101. The other two appeals to the Supreme Court, which were submitted by the first applicant against the refusal of the Council of Ministers to register the results of the national conference of 6 March 1995, were not effective remedies either. Although the Supreme Court upheld these appeals, the Council of Ministers refused to comply with its judgments.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">102. The Government suggested that the applicants could have requested the institution of criminal proceedings against persons who might have impeded the exercise of their freedom of religion.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court observes, however, that the first applicant did in fact turn to the prosecuting authorities for assistance, but to no avail (see paragraph 26 above).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, the Government have not indicated how criminal proceedings, if instituted, could have led to an examination of the substance of the applicants' complaints, which concern decisions issued by a Deputy Prime Minister and the Directorate of Religious Denominations and found by the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 July 1995, to have been formally lawful. It is unclear how such proceedings could have remedied the situation complained of.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">103. The Government have not indicated any other remedy which could be used by the applicants or other representatives of the religious community.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">104. The Court finds, therefore, that the leadership of the faction led by Mr Hasan were unable to mount an effective challenge to the unlawful State interference in the internal affairs of the religious community and to assert their right to organisational autonomy, as protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It follows that neither applicant had an effective remedy in respect of the violation of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. There has, therefore, been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">105. The applicants complained that they did not have access to a court for the determination of certain civil rights. In their view Decree R-12 was decisive for some of their civil rights. These were the first applicant's right, in his capacity of Chief Mufti, to manage the religious affairs of the community, to administer its funds and property, and his right to remuneration for his services as Chief Mufti, and the second applicant's right to continue his job of an Islamic teacher, from which he was allegedly </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">de facto </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">dismissed. The applicants asserted that the determination of their civil rights without them having been parties to any proceedings, and without the Supreme Court having examined in substance the challenge against Decree R-12, was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">106. The Government submitted that the misfortunes in the applicants' careers were not the consequence of the impugned decisions. The applicants had not been parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court against Decree R-12. Furthermore, if the second applicant had had an employment contract, he could have challenged its termination before the courts.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">107. The Commission considered that the applicants' complaints under Article 6 were unsubstantiated.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">108. The Court notes that the applicants have not substantiated the legal basis and the content of their alleged civil rights. Furthermore, they have not shown that there existed any obstacles preventing them from bringing civil actions before the courts in respect of their alleged right to remuneration.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court therefore finds that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">109. The Court notes that the applicants did not reiterate their complaints made before the Commission under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In those circumstances the Court sees no reason to deal with them of its own motion.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">110. Article 41 of the Convention provides:</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 26.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 10.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A. DAMAGE</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. PECUNIARY DAMAGE</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">111. The first applicant claimed </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">,240 new levs (BGN) in respect of lost salary for the period between his removal from the position of Chief Mufti in February 1995 and November 1997, when a Chief Mufti elected at a unification conference took office.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He also claimed costs for maintaining his activities as Chief Mufti between February 1995 and November 1997 (rent for an office and publication of the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Musulmanin</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> newspaper) in the amount of 5,500 United States dollars (USD).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The second applicant claimed BGN 6,060 in lost salary as secretary to the Chief Mufti's Office and editor of the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Musulmanin</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> newspaper for the period between February 1995 and November 1997.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">112. The applicants supported their claims by copies of contracts for the rent of two flats, receipts concerning expenses for the publication of the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Musulmanin</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> newspaper and for the holding of local meetings of the religious community, and a declaration from a Mr Velev who certified that he knew the applicants, that the second applicant used to perform “secretarial functions” at the Chief Mufti's Office and used to be the editor of the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Musulmanin</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> newspaper, and that as far as he remembered the applicants' monthly salaries were the equivalent of BGN 280 for the first applicant and BGN 200 for the second applicant.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicants stated that they were unable to present other documentary proof as all documents concerning their income had remained in the building of the Chief Mufti's Office from where they had been evicted by force on 27 February 1995.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">113. The Government submitted that all claims were unsubstantiated and not supported by sufficient evidence. In particular, the claims in respect of lost salary were without any basis, the applicants not having presented a single payment slip. Furthermore, a number of documents submitted by the applicants were unclear and contained numerous contradictions. The contracts for the rent of two flats mentioned that the flats were to be used by the tenant not only as offices but also as residences. There was no proof that the tenants had actually moved in or had paid the rent. In one contract the figure “1995” had clearly been overwritten to read “1996”.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Government further pointed out that the applicants had used arbitrary methods of calculation. In particular, the first applicant claimed that as of February 1995 his salary was 10,000 “old” levs (BGL) and that this amount was the equivalent of BGN 280. However, this calculation had apparently been made on the basis of the exchange rate of the lev with another currency. In fact, in July 1999 BGL 1,000 (“old” levs) became BGN 1 (“new” lev). Thus, BGL 10,000 would be the equivalent of BGN 10.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">114. As regards the expenses for the publication of the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Musulmanin</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> newspaper, the Government contended that there were contradictions between the initial submissions of the applicants where they had claimed expenses in respect of three issues of the newspaper, and their later submissions, where they mentioned two issues and then four issues. Furthermore, the trade name of the newspaper had been registered by a third person and nothing demonstrated that the applicants could claim expenses in respect of the publication of this newspaper.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">115. In respect of the second applicant the Government submitted a copy of a letter dated 8 May 2000 from the Chief Mufti's Office which certified that Mr Chaush had not worked at the Chief Mufti's Office as claimed by him. He had occasionally taught at the Islamic Institute in Sofia. Furthermore, the Government drew attention to a contradiction between the claims of the second applicant and his declaration of means made on 31 January 2000 and submitted for the purposes of his legal aid request. In the latter document the second applicant had stated that he had variable income, during the school year only, at the average level of BGN 40 to 80 per month.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">116. The Government finally asserted that in February 1995 the first applicant had ceased to be Chief Mufti and could not therefore claim sums in respect of expenses allegedly incurred in his activities as Chief Mufti.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">117. The Court considers that Mr Chaush, the second applicant, has not established a direct causal link between the violation found in the present case and the loss of income or other pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by him. The present case did not concern the circumstances of the second applicant's alleged dismissal from his position of an Islamic teacher, but the interference with his right to freedom of religion resulting from the forced removal of the leadership of the religious community to which he adhered as an active member. His claim for pecuniary damage is therefore dismissed.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">118. In respect of the first applicant, it appears that some of the amounts claimed by him, such as sums for rent of offices and publication of a newspaper, concern the Chief Mufti's Office, which initially submitted an application to the Commission but then withdrew from the proceedings (see paragraph 2 above). Such amounts notwithstanding, the Court considers that the first applicant personally must have suffered some pecuniary damage as a result of his unlawful removal from the position of Chief Mufti and the forced eviction from the building of the Chief Mufti's Office. His claim in this respect, however, is not supported by reliable documentary evidence. As regards the alleged loss of income he has only submitted a declaration by a person who allegedly knew the amount of his salary. The Court finds therefore that the claim for pecuniary damage cannot be granted (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 23885/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-VIII).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nevertheless, the Court accepts that the first applicant's inability to furnish documentary proof may to a certain extent be due to the fact that he was evicted by force from his office in February 1995 and denied access to his documentation. It will therefore take these circumstances into account when deciding on the first applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE</span></i></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">119. The first applicant claimed USD 50,000 and the second applicant USD 30,000 under this head.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicants submitted that they had suffered considerable distress over a long period of time. The first applicant had been the head of the second largest religious community in the country. His duty and responsibility </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">vis-à-vis </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">the thousands of believers who had placed their trust in him as their representative had been to ensure the functioning of the legitimate leadership of the religious community. The fact that he could not succeed in this task on account of the unlawful interference of the State with the internal organisation of the Muslim religion caused him acute emotional suffering. This situation was aggravated by the complete disrespect of the authorities for the rule of law between February 1995 and October 1997 when the applicants made numerous attempts to obtain justice, but were simply ignored. Throughout this period of time they continued to work facing enormous difficulties.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">120. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicants' claims and to accept that the finding of a violation would be sufficient just satisfaction.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Government stated that the applicants had not shown damage to their reputation or their health and could not therefore claim non-pecuniary damage. Their personal emotional reactions to the events complained of were of a purely subjective nature and could not serve as grounds for a quantified claim.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the Government's submission the amounts claimed were in any event excessive and did not find support in the Court's case-law or the practice of the Committee of Ministers. Furthermore, the applicants' claims were exorbitant in view of the standard of living in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, where, for the period 1992-98, on average, the minimum monthly salary was the equivalent of about USD 30 and the monthly salary of a judge at regional level about USD 140.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">121. The Court considers that the unlawful State interference with the organisation of the Muslim community has undoubtedly caused distress to the first applicant, who was removed from his position as head of the second largest religious community in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. This situation was aggravated by the continuous disrespect for his rights, the lack of any clear legal foundation for the acts of the authorities and their failure to provide an effective remedy.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court considers, however, that the claims are excessive, regard being had to its case-law (see </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thlimmenos v. Greece</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 34369/97, § 70, ECHR 2000-IV; </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ceylan v. Turkey</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> [GC], no. 23556/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-IV; and the following judgments cited above: Kokkinakis, p. 23, § 59; </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Serif</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">,</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">§ 61; and Larissis and Others, p. 384, § 74).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards BGN 10,000 to the first applicant.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As regards the second applicant the Court holds that the finding of violations of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">B. COSTS AND EXPENSES</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">122. The applicants claimed USD 3,150 for 105 hours of work (at the rate of USD 30 per hour) by their lawyer on the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, an additional USD 640 for 16 hours of legal work on the hearing before the Court and USD 2,685 for expenses related to the hearing in Strasbourg on 29 May 2000. The latter amount included USD 1,560 in air fares for the two applicants and their lawyer, USD 1,080 in subsistence expenses for three days (on the basis of USD 120 per day per person) and USD 55 paid for French visas.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The amount claimed by the applicants is equivalent to about BGN 13,500.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">123. The Government pointed out that part of the legal work concerned the initial complaints of the Chief Mufti's Office before the Commission. However, the Chief Mufti's Office withdrew its complaints. The Government further objected to the hourly rate applied by the applicant's lawyer, which was many times superior to the normal rate charged by lawyers in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, and submitted that the “time sheet” presented by the lawyer was unreliable. Finally, the amounts claimed in respect of air fares and subsistence expenses were not supported by invoices.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">124. The Court agrees with the Government that a certain reduction should be applied in view of the fact that part of the costs were incurred in relation to the complaints which were disjoined and struck out by the Commission on 17 September 1998 (see paragraph 2 above). The remainder of the claim does not appear excessive in the light of the Court's case-law (see the Lukanov v. </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> judgment of 20 March 1997, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reports</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 1997-II, p. 546, § 56; the Assenov and Others v. </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> judgment of 28 October 1998, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reports</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 1998-VIII, p. 3305, §§ 176-78; </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nikolova v. </span></i><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></i></b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II; and </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Velikova v. </span></i><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, no. 41488/98, § 104, ECHR 2000-VI).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court accordingly awards the sum of BGN 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less 18,655.87 French francs received by the applicants by way of legal aid, to be converted into levs at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 68.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -26.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">C. DEFAULT INTEREST</span></b></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">125. According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bulgaria</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 13.85% per annum.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dismisses</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously the Government's preliminary objection;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that there has been a violation of Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that no separate issue arises under Article 11 of the Convention;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that the respondent State is to pay within three months to the first applicant, for non-pecuniary damage, BGN 10,000 (ten thousand levs);</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> by eleven votes to six that the finding of violations of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the second applicant;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that the respondent State is to pay within three months to both applicants, for costs and expenses, the global sum of BGN 10,000 (ten thousand levs) plus any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less FRF 18,655.87 (eighteen thousand six hundred and fifty-five French francs eighty-seven centimes) received by them by way of legal aid, to be converted into levs at the rate applicable on the date of settlement;</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holds</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously that simple interest at an annual rate of 13,85% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -22.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dismisses</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> unanimously the remainder of the applicants' claims for just satisfaction.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 October 2000.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 96.0px;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Luzius WILDHABER </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> President </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Maud DE BOER-BUQUICCHIO </div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Deputy Registrar</div></span><br />
<div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the joint partly dissenting opinion of Mrs Tulkens and Mr Casadevall joined by Mr Bonello, Mrs Strážnická, Mrs Greve and Mr Maruste is annexed to this judgment.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: right;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">L.W. </span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">M.B.</div></span><br />
<div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 16px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES TULKENS AND CASADEVALL JOINED BY JUDGES BONELLO, STRÁŽNICKÁ, GREVE AND MARUSTE</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. We do not agree with the majority regarding point 8 of the operative provisions on just satisfaction for the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Since the freedom of thought, conscience and religion protected by Article </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Convention is one of the foundations of a democratic society, as the judgment quite rightly points out, we consider that the mere finding of a violation of that provision does not in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. In the present case there is no doubt that both the first and the second applicants were victims of the violations alleged and that they were both “active members of the religious community ...”. Moreover, it is undisputed that the second applicant, Mr Chaush, who used to work as a Muslim teacher, “is a ... believer who actively participated in religious life at the relevant time” (see paragraph 63 of the judgment), and he “continued to work facing enormous difficulties” for nearly three years (see paragraph 119 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">in fine</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">).</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. That being so, we think that the second applicant also suffered distress and sustained non-pecuniary damage, certainly less serious damage than the first applicant, but damage which nevertheless warranted an award of just satisfaction to Mr Chaush under Article 41 of the Convention.</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 16px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 48px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HASAN AND CHAUSH v. </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BULGARIA</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> JUDGMENT</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 16px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 48px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HASAN AND CHAUSH v. </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BULGARIA</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> JUDGMENT </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-75500163064408294322010-12-19T09:47:00.004+01:002010-12-20T13:43:21.274+01:00DIE RELIGIONSZUGEHöRIGKEIT IN BULGARIEN 1910 - 2001<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/die-religionszugehorigkeit-in-bulgarien.html" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DA5_jr72i-M/TDOVCnb0L1I/AAAAAAAAAvs/uBuYfow-Pn4/s1600/tftri.png" /></a><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>D</b></span>ie erste amtliche Volkszählung in Bulgarien wurde 1887 durchgeführt. In ihrem Programm war auch die Frage der Religionszugehörigkeit enthalten.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Die letzte bulgarische </span><span style="font-size: large;">Volkszählung erfolgte 2001. Zum ersten Mal war es während dessen möglich, dass man über die Religiosität mit "<i>nicht bestimmt</i>" antwortet. Jedoch fehlte es an Möglichkeit, dass man sich als <i>Atheist</i> verzeichnet. </span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Anfang 2011 wird gemäß des in 2009 verabschiedeten <i>Gesetzes über die Zählung der Bevölkerung, Wohnungsfonds und der Landwirtschaften in der Republik Bulgarien in 2011</i> <b><span style="font-size: small;">(Gbl. 39/2009)</span></b> auch die Information über die Religionszugehörigkeit der Bevölkerung in Bulgarien festgestellt. Die Repräsentativität aller Zählungen hängt jedoch sehr stark von verschiedenen Kriterien ab, so dass man sie nicht selten unter bestimmten Aspekten in Frage stellen kann. Trotzdem verschafft diese Statistik eine hilfreiche Vorstellung.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><br />
<style>
body, div, table, thead, tbody, tfoot, tr, th, td, p { font-family: "Arial"; font-size: x-small; }
</style> <br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="5" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><colgroup><col width="262"></col><col width="102"></col><col width="102"></col><col width="102"></col><col width="102"></col></colgroup> <tbody>
<tr> <td align="CENTER" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="262"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">GLAUBENSBEKENNTNIS</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="102"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">1934</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="102"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">1946</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="102"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">1992</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="102"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">2001</span></b></span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffff00" height="19" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Bevölkerungszahl</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: yellow; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: yellow; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: yellow; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">INSGESAMT</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">6 077 939</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">7 029 349</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">8 487 317</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">7 928 901</span></b></span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="20" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ÖSTLICH-ORTHODOX</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">5 128 890</span></b></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">5 967 992</span></b></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">7 274 592</span></b></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">6 552 751</span></b></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">MUSLIMISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">821 298</span></b></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">938 418</span></b></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">1 110 295</span></b></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">966 978</span></b></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">KATHOLISCH </span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">45 704</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">53 074</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">43 811</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">EVANGELISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">8 371</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">21 878</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">42 308</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">JUDISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">48 398</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">43 335</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">2 580</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">653</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ARMENO-GREGORIANISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">23 476</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">9 672</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">6 500</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ANDERE </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">(nicht verzeichnet)</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">1 802</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">79 604</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">15 226</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">7 784</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">NICHT BESTIMMT</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">308 116</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffff00" height="19" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Bevölkerungsstruktur in %</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffff00" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">INSGESAMT</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ÖSTLICH-ORTHODOX</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">84.4</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">84.9</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">85.7</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">82.6</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">MUSLIMISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">13,5</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">13,3</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">13,1</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">12,2</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">KATHOLISCH </span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.8</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.6</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.6</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">EVANGELISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.3</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.5</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">JUDISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.8</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.6</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.0</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.0</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ARMENO-GREGORIANISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.4</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ANDERE (nicht verzeichnet)</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.0</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">01.01.09</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.2</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">NICHT BESTIMMT</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">-</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">3,9</span></td> </tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
<style>
body, div, table, thead, tbody, tfoot, tr, th, td, p { font-family: "Arial"; font-size: x-small; }
</style> <br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="4" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><colgroup><col width="281"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="126"></col><col width="125"></col></colgroup> <tbody>
<tr> <td align="CENTER" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="281"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">GLAUBENSBEKENNTNIS</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="133"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">1910</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="126"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">1920</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="125"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">1926</span></b></span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" height="20" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;">Bevölkerungszahl</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">INSGESAMT</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">4 337 513</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">4 846 971</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">5 478 741</span></b></span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="20" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ÖSTLICH-ORTHODOX</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">3 643 918</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">4 062 097</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">4 569 074</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">MUSLIMISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">602 078</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">690 734</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">789 296</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">KATHOLISCH </span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">32 150</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">34 072</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">40 347</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">EVANGELISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">6 335</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">5 617</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">6 735</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">JUDISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">40 067</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">43 232</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">46 431</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ARMENO-GREGORIANISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">12 259</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">10 848</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">25 402</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ANDERE (nicht verzeichnet)</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">706,00</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">371,00</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">1 456</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" height="20" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;">Bevölkerungsstruktur in %</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ccffff" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-top: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">INSGESAMT</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana;">100.0</span></b></span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ÖSTLICH-ORTHODOX</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">84.0</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">83.8</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">83.4</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">MUSLIMISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">13,9</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">14,3</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">14,4</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">KATHOLISCH </span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.7</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.7</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.7</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">EVANGELISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.1</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">JUDISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.9</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.9</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.8</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ARMENO-GREGORIANISCH</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.3</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.2</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.5</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">ANDERE (nicht verzeichnet)</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.0</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.0</span></td> <td align="RIGHT" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">0.0</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="LEFT" height="19" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> <td align="LEFT" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></td> </tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
<a href="http://www.nsi.bg/index.php"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Quellen: Angaben vom Nationalen Statistischen Institut in Bulgarien.</span></a><br />
<br />
<img src="http://vg01.met.vgwort.de/na/be3edc899305470d840d6438a165250f" width="1" height="1" alt="">xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985633009255324662.post-84449140085019956812010-12-08T22:12:00.003+01:002010-12-19T09:46:04.200+01:00Neuere Religionsgesetze in Südosteuropa - XXI Jh<div class="text" style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/neuere-religionsgesetze-in-sudosteuropa.html" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DA5_jr72i-M/TBqP7bk5q0I/AAAAAAAAAsk/Z3aqif7VSng/S960-R/art_sep.png" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>D</b></span>as Bulgarische Religionsgesetz von 2002 findet sich in deutscher Sprache <a href="http://www.univie.ac.at/recht-religion/archiv/2006-3a.html">hier</a>:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.univie.ac.at/recht-religion/archiv/2006-3a.html"><img border="0" height="80" src="http://www.univie.ac.at/recht-religion/archiv/oarr.gif" width="640" /></a></div></div><div class="text" style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: large;">:: H. P. Berov, Übersetzung aus dem Bulgarischen: Gesetz über die Glaubensbekenntnisse, öarr 2006, Heft 3, S. 375-387; ISSN 1560-8670.</span></blockquote><br />
</div><div class="text" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="text" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: large;">Im selben Heft findet sich auch eine kurze Kommentierung des bulgarischen Religionsgesetzes.</span></div><div class="text" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="text" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: large;">:: H. P. Berov, Das bulgarische Religionsgesetz von 2002, das so genannte „Gesetz über die Glaubensbekenntnisse“, Österreichisches Archiv für Recht und Religion (=öarr) 2006, Heft 3, S. 388-395; ISSN 1560-8670.</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://hberov.blogspot.com/2010/12/neuere-religionsgesetze-in-sudosteuropa.html" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DA5_jr72i-M/TBqP7bk5q0I/AAAAAAAAAsk/Z3aqif7VSng/S960-R/art_sep.png" /></a></div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div></div>xn6http://www.blogger.com/profile/14342936311278621639noreply@blogger.com