THIRD SECTION
Application no. 35839/07
PAROHIA GRECO-CATOLICA PESCEANA and others
against Romania
lodged on 4 April 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants in the present case are the Greek-catholic parish of Pesceana, a religious body created on 20 January 2005 in Pesceana, as well as some of its members, Romanian nationals living in Pesceana whose names, dates of birth and places of residence appear in the annex to this document. The applicant Mr Victor Tudor acts as their representative; he was born in 1964 and lives in Cermegesti-Pesceana, Vâlcea County.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. Origins of the case
On 19 January 2005 Victor Tudor, who was at that time the orthodox priest from Pesceana parish in Vâlcea County, together with 358 members of his parish decided to join the Eastern Catholic Church (“the
Greek-Catholic Church”). The next day they were recognised as parish by Blaj Greek-Catholic Archeparchy (Mitropolia Româna Unită cu Roma Blaj) and Mr Tudor was ordained priest of that parish. The applicant parish became thus legitimate according to the applicable laws.
On 22 January 2005 the Pesceana local authorities refused to recognise the new parish, denied its members access to the village church and cemetery and advised Râmnicul Orthodox Diocese (Episcopia Râmnicului) to take appropriate action against Mr Tudor. On 29 March 2005 the local council reiterated its decision. On 3 June 2005 they also refused to allow the Greek-catholic parish to hold its religious gatherings in a deserted school building.
On 24 January 2005 Mr Tudor resigned from his previous position in the Orthodox Church. He was defrocked the next day. A new orthodox priest was sent by the Orthodox Church to the local parish.
On 24 February 2005 the Ministry of Culture and Cults asked the
Greek-Catholic Archeparchy to re-examine its decision to ordain Mr Tudor as catholic priest in Pesceana. They suggested that his withdrawal could facilitate the dialogue between the two parishes in the community.
Meanwhile, Râmnicul Orthodox Diocese filed a request, by means of the urgent procedure (ordonanţă preşedenţială), concerning the possession of the church property. In a final decision of 8 March 2005 the Vâlcea County Cout ordered Mr Tudor to surrender the property belonging to the orthodox church to the plaintiff and to stop using the village church and cemetery for Greek-catholic practices.
On 27 May 2005 the Pesceana local authorities transferred the property title concerning the cemetery to the orthodox parish. On 17 June 2005 they delivered the title deeds for the land to the orthodox parish. However, on 10 October 2008 these deeds were declared null and void by the Vâlcea County Court, in an action opposing the Greek-catholic church to the Pesceana local authorities.
Several members of the Pesceana Greek-Catholic parish lodged a complaint against the local authorities and the orthodox community, with the National Council against Discrimination. The Council examined the administrative decision of 22 January 2005. It noted that the plaintiffs were denied access to the church building and the village cemetery. It concluded that the local authorities breached the applicants’ freedom of conscience and disregarded their religious autonomy. Consequently, the Council issued a warning for the local authorities. It gave its decision on 31 August 2005.
The conflicts between the two religious communities escalated. The orthodox prohibited the catholic from entering the cemetery to bury their dead or honour their memory. According to the applicants, they had suffered increased pressure to revert to orthodoxy: they were asked to sign a renunciation of Catholicism if they wanted the local authorities to deliver any official acts, they received unjustified fines, some of them were threatened with dismissal from their jobs and the local school organised a public manifestation against the Catholic Church. The Greek-Catholic Archeparchy intervened in their favour, by engaging in a written exchange with the local authorities. This, however, remained fruitless.
Several criminal complaints were also lodged by both parties to the conflict.
B. Requests for access to the village cemetery
1. The urgent procedure
Using the urgent procedure, the applicant parish sought to compel the orthodox parish to allow the Greek-catholic the right to use the village cemetery for burying the dead and for memorial services.
In a final decision of 19 January 2006 the Vâlcea County Court found in favour of the applicant parish. The court noted that the applicant parish had been recognised by the Greek-Catholic Church, and was thus legally constituted. It reiterated that, according to Law on Religious Worship, as the village had only one cemetery, all individuals had to have access to the burial grounds, irrespective of their faith.
However, the Greek-catholic continued to be denied access to the cemetery by the orthodox community. On 3 February 2006 the county court issued an enforcement order concerning the decision of 19 January 2006.
However, the bailiff’s attempts to enforce that decision remained futile because of the strong opposition by the orthodox community. Not even the police intervention on behalf of the applicants was able to deter the opposing parish. According to the bailiff’s report, the new orthodox priest refused to assist him and the Greek-Catholics of the village in the enforcement attempts or to talk with his believers. He claimed that he was engaged in other religious duties at that moment.
2. The normal procedure
Several members of the applicant parish (see annex two below) lodged an action against the orthodox parish and Râmnicu Orthodox Diocese seeking access to the cemetery to bury the dead and perform the adjacent rituals.
The final ruling in the case was given on 26 February 2009 by the Piteşti Court of Appeal. Using the same arguments as those advanced by the County Court in the urgent procedure, the Court of Appeal recognised the rights for the Greek-catholic members of the community to be buried in the Greek-catholic tradition. However, it decided that the persons who embraced the catholic faith are not allowed to perform catholic rituals for the deceased members of their families who had been buried according to the orthodox tradition. In deciding so, the court of appeal considered that the person’s own convictions at the time of death should be subsequently respected by the family in the choice of rites.
C. Current situation
It appears that the applicants are still forbidden from entering the cemetery.
COMPLAINTS
1. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain about the impossibility to use the village cemetery, despite them being in the possession of a final decision giving them right to access the grounds. They also complain about the manner in which the domestic courts decided not to allow them to practice Greek-catholic rituals for the deceased members of their families who had been buried according to the orthodox rite.
2. The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention that the decisions and actions of the domestic authorities breached their freedom of conscience and religion and as a consequence they cannot effectively practice their religion. In particular they argue that, despite court decisions in their favour, they cannot access the cemetery to bury their dead. Furthermore, they are not allowed to pay respects to their dead according to the rites of their religion.
3. Lastly, they allege being victims of discrimination based on their religion. They rely in substance on Article 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can all the applicants claim to be victims of a violation of their rights prescribed by the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?
2. Did the applicants have access to a court, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the enforcement of the final decisions of 19 January 2006 by the Vâlcea County Court and of 26 February 2009 by the Piteşti Court of Appeal is concerned?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, in so far as they cannot use the village cemetery?
4. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their religion contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 6 § 1 and 9 of the Convention?
Annex 1
(Applicants’ names, dates of birth and places of residence)
No.
First name, LAST NAME
Birth date
Place of residence
‘ PAROHIA GRECO-CATOLICA PESCEANA
Pesceana
Toma PREDESCU
07/05/1951
Cermegesti
Valerica PREDESCU
13/06/1956
Cermegesti
Ioan Mugurel NEDELUT
12/12/1987
Cermegesti
Ioan NEDELUT
25/05/1962
Cermegesti
Roxana Catalina NEDELUT
14/05/1992
Cermegesti
Ionel ZAULET
16/04/1969
Cermegesti
Ilie MANDA
25/04/1940
Cermegesti
Elena MANDA
28/10/1940
Cermegesti
Daniela GAINA
16/07/1968
Cermegesti
Gheorghe BUZATU
10/04/1941
Cermegesti
Elena BUZATU
29/08/1949
Cermegesti
Ioana VOINEA
03/11/1958
Cermegesti
Vasile VOINEA
06/10/1956
Cermegesti
Elena Monica VOINEA
20/05/1983
Cermegesti
Constantin Catalin VOINEA
03/07/1993
Cermegesti
Ion CARSTEA
14/12/1959
Cermegesti
Elena CARSTEA
26/09/1962
Cermegesti
Ilie POPA
02/06/1974
Cermegesti
Elena POPA
02/10/1974
Cermegesti
Gheorghe BERCEA
16/04/1952
Cermegesti
Niculina BERCEA
25/01/1955
Cermegesti
Maria ZAULET
30/08/1971
Cermegesti
Constantina DRAGOMIR
20/10/1938
Lupoaia
Marin FULGESCU
06/07/1935
Lupoaia
Zenovia FULGESCU
21/10/1934
Lupoaia
Gheorghe IBRAC
02/06/1942
Lupoaia
Elena IBRAC
02/10/1943
Lupoaia
Sandel FULGESCU
16/11/1955
Lupoaia
Victoria FULGESCU
17/05/1967
Râmnicu Vâlcea
Adriana DUTA
01/04/1985
Râmnicu Vâlcea
Maria SPATARU
31/08/1938
Lupoaia
Dumitru FULGESCU
25/03/1960
Lupoaia
Lucian PREOTEASA
26/01/1961
Lupoaia
Elena MATEI
25/10/1963
Lupoaia
Constantin PREDESCU
16/04/1934
Lupoaia
Ilie VILAU
26/03/1953
Lupoaia
Lucretia VILAU
17/05/1956
Lupoaia
Lucian CRUCERU
01/10/1938
Lupoaia
Ana CRUCERU
02/09/1949
Lupoaia
Constantin VOINEA
13/05/1973
Lupoaia
Doina VOINEA
08/08/1975
Lupoaia
Maria VOINEA
22/09/1944
Lupoaia
Ion IBRAC
08/05/1949
Lupoaia
Petre IBRAC
01/12/1961
Lupoaia
Andreea Ioana IBRAC
14/08/1989
Lupoaia
Elena IBRAC
17/10/1969
Lupoaia
Gheorghe BADEA
05/05/1957
Lupoaia
Maria BADEA
19/02/1960
Lupoaia
Bianca BADEA
29/01/1987
Lupoaia
Marian BADEA
28/02/1983
Lupoaia
Ionela Alexandra BADEA
27/10/1989
Lupoaia
Lucretia CRUCERU
06/04/1969
Lupoaia
Nicolae CRUCERU
13/08/1965
Lupoaia
Nicolae Iulian CRUCERU
05/07/1993
Lupoaia
Dumitru Cristian CRUCERU
03/01/1951
Lupoaia
Maria CREVENICEANU
14/08/1945
Lupoaia
Marcel FULGESCU
27/02/1947
Lupoaia
Cristina IBRAC
26/01/1990
Lupoaia
Sofronie POPESCU
11/09/1947
Cermegesti
Eugenia POPESCU
23/09/1952
Cermegesti
Traian FULGESCU
09/02/1952
Cermegesti
Gheorghita FULGESCU
21/02/1956
Cermegesti
Alexandru Gabriel CIUCA
12/09/1989
Băile Olănești
Annex 2
Applicants who lodged the action before the domestic courts in order to be allowed access to the village cemetery
Gheorghe BADEA Ion CÂRSTEA Maria CREVENICEANU Lucretia CRUCERU Dumitru FULGESCU Gheorghita FULGESCU Marin FULGESCU Nicolae FULGESCU Traian FULGESCU Victoria FULGESCU Elena IBRAC Elena MATEI Matei ION Vasile NEAGU Constantin PREDESCU Nicolae SPATARU Octavian TUDOR Victor TUDOR Lucretia VILAU Ioana VOINEA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy