Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208
June 2017
Metodiev and Others v. Bulgaria - 58088/08
Judgment 15.6.2017 [Section V]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief
Refusal to register religious association owing to lack of precise description of its beliefs and rites in its statute: violation
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Refusal to register religious association owing to lack of precise description of its beliefs and rites in its statute: violation
Facts – In February 2007 ten individuals who were Ahmadi Muslims, including nine of the 31 applicants, decided to set up a new religious association called the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
The first applicant filed with the district court an application for the registration of the new religious association in accordance with the Religions Act. He appended the association’s constitution setting out its aims and beliefs. However, the national courts denied the application on the ground that there was no specific statement of the association’s beliefs and rites.
Law – Article 9, read in the light of Article 11: Owing to the district court’s failure to register it the religious association was unable to acquire legal personality and exercise the rights associated with that status in its own name, such as the right to own or rent property, hold bank accounts or bring legal proceedings – rights which were nevertheless essential for the purpose of manifesting its religion. Thus the refusal to register the association pursuant to the Religions Act constituted interference with the rights secured under Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11. The interference was “prescribed by law” and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
The sole ground relied on by the Supreme Court of Cassation for denying the application was the lack of any sufficiently precise and clear indication of the beliefs and rites of the Ahmadi faith in the association’s constitution. It had concluded that the constitution did not meet the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Religions Act, which sought to distinguish between the different denominations and avoid confrontations between religious communities.
The name of the religious association and its constitution clearly indicated that it belonged to the Ahmadiyya Community, which was present throughout the world, and its constitution set out the beliefs and fundamental values of its followers. The Religions Act did not contain any specific provisions as to what degree of precision such a description should have or what specific information had to be given in the statement of beliefs and rites. There were no other rules or guidelines accessible to the applicants which could have been of help to them in that connection. It had not therefore been straightforward for the applicants to ensure that their constitution complied with the precision required by the domestic courts. In addition, the applicants were not given the possibility of rectifying the shortcoming by providing additional information to the relevant courts.
The religious association, as a prerequisite for registration, had to show how its beliefs were different from denominations already registered and, in particular, from the mainstream Muslim faith. Such an approach, when strictly adopted as was the case here, would lead in practice to the refusal of registration of any new religious association with the same doctrine as an existing denomination. Having regard to the impossibility under Bulgarian law for an association with religious activities to obtain legal personality by any other means, that approach of the highest court could result in allowing the existence of only one religious association for each religious movement and in requiring all followers to adhere to it. Moreover, the assessment of the nature of beliefs was a matter for the courts and not for the religious communities themselves.
Such an approach was hard to reconcile with the freedom of religion secured by Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11. The right to freedom of religion excluded in principle any assessment by the State of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the forms of expression of those beliefs, even if the aim was to preserve unity within a religious community. The alleged lack of precision in the description of the religious association’s beliefs and rites in its constitution was not capable of justifying the denial of the registration in question, which was accordingly not necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 4,000 to the first applicant for non-pecuniary damage; finding of violation sufficient in itself for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the other applicants.
(See Hassan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, 30985/96, 26 October 2000; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, 45701/99, 13 December 2001, Information Note 37; Kimlya and Others v. Russia, 76836/01 and 32782/03, 1 October 2009, Information Note 123; and İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], 62649/10, 26 April 2016, Information Note 195)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy