MYUFTIISTVO (CHIEF MUFTI OFFICE), HASAN, SYULEIMAN AND CHAUSH v. BULGARIA



                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 30985/96

                      by Glavno Myuftiistvo (Chief Mufti Office),

                      Fikri HASAN, Fehmi SYULEIMAN, and Ismail CHAUSH

                      against Bulgaria

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 September 1997, the following members being present:

           Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

                 F. MARTINEZ

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 P. LORENZEN

                 K. HERNDL

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

           Mrs.  M. HION

           MM.   R. NICOLINI

                 A. ARABADJIEV

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 22 January 1996

by Glavno Myuftiistvo (Chief Mufti Office), Fikri HASAN, Fehmi

SYULEIMAN, and Ismail CHAUSH against Bulgaria and registered on

11 April 1996 under file No. 30985/96;

      Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The application is brought by the Chief Mufti Office (Glavno

muftiistvo) of the Bulgarian Muslims ("the first applicant"), and by

three individuals.  Mr. Fikri Sali Hasan ("the second applicant") was

elected Chief Mufti (Glaven muftia) of the Bulgarian Muslims in 1992,

the fact whether he still holds this position being disputed.  He is

a Bulgarian national born in 1963 and residing in Sofia.  He claims

that he represents the first applicant in his capacity of Chief Mufti.

      The other two individual applicants are Mr. Fehmi Iavash

Syuleiman ("the third applicant"), a Bulgarian national born in 1940

and residing in Sofia, a Muslim believer, and  Mr. Ismail Ahmed Chaush

("the fourth applicant"), a Bulgarian national born in 1940, an islamic

teacher residing in Sofia.

      Before the Commission all applicants are represented by Mr. Yonko

Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia.

      The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be

summarised as follows.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

Background of the case

      Following the beginning of the democratisation process in

Bulgaria at the end of 1989, 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. N.G., who was

the Chief Mufti at that time, and the members of the Supreme Spiritual

Council (Vissh duhoven savet) had collaborated with the communist

regime  between 1984 and 1989, when it forcefully imposed Bulgarian

names on ethnic Turks.  The old leadership, with Mr. N.G. as Chief

Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, also had its supporters.  This

situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Muslim

community in Bulgaria.

      On 10 February 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations

(Direktzia po veroizpovedaniata), a governmental agency at the Council

of Ministers, acting pursuant to Section 12 of the Religious

Denominations Act (Zakon za izpovedaniata), as in force at the time,

declared that the election of Mr. N.G. as Chief Mufti of the Muslims

in Bulgaria had been null and void and proclaimed his removal from this

position.  On 21 February 1992 the Directorate registered a three-

member Interim Spiritual Council as a temporary governing body of the

Muslims' religious organisation, until the election of a permanent new

leadership by a national conference of all Muslims.

      Following these events Mr. N.G., who claimed that he remained the

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. N.G. 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. N.G.'s appeal, the Chamber also

discussed the merits of the appeal.  It found inter alia that the

Directorate's decision to declare Mr. N.G.'s election null and void had

been within the competence of the Directorate under Section 12 of the

Religious Denominations Act.  Insofar as the impugned decision had also

proclaimed "the removal" of Mr. N.G. from his position of Chief Mufti,

this had been beyond the competence of the Directorate.  However, it

was unnecessary to declare the nullity of this part of the

Directorate's decision as in any event it had no legal consequences.

      The National Conference of Muslims, organised by the interim

leadership, took place on 19 September 1992.  It elected the second

applicant as Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, eight members of the

Supreme Spiritual Council, and also approved a new Statute of the

Religious Organisation of the Muslims in Bulgaria (Ustav za duhovnoto

ustroistvo i upravlenie na miusiulmanite v Balgaria).  On 1 October

1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations registered the Statute

and the new leadership pursuant to Sections 6 and 16 of the Religious

Denominations Act.

      Events of 1994 and at the beginning of 1995

      While the leadership dispute between Mr. N.G. and the second

applicant continued, the official position of the Directorate of

Religious Denominations, throughout 1993 and at least in the first half

of 1994, remained that the second applicant was the legitimate Chief

Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims.

      On 29 July 1994 the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote

a letter to the second applicant urging him to organise a national

conference of all Muslims to solve certain problems arising from

irregularities in the election of local religious leaders, in the local

chapters.  The irregularities in question apparently concerned alleged

inconsistencies with the internal statute of the Muslim religious

organisation, and not breaches of the law.

      On 2 November 1994 the supporters of Mr. N.G. held a national

conference.  The conference proclaimed itself the legitimate

representative of the Muslim believers, elected an alternative

leadership and adopted a statute.  After the conference the newly

elected rival leaders applied for registration at the Directorate of

Religious Denominations, claiming that they were the legitimate

leadership of the Muslims in Bulgaria.

      On 3 January 1995 the Supreme Spiritual Council presided over by

the second applicant decided to convene a national conference on

28 January 1995.

      On 16 January 1995 the Directorate of Religious Denominations

wrote a letter to the second applicant in his capacity of Chief Mufti.

The letter stated inter alia that under Section 9 of the Religious

Denominations Act every religious denomination in the country was under

the obligation to have a leadership for contacts with the State.

However, because of the irregularities concerning the local chapters

of the Muslim religious organisation, its leadership was not

functioning in conformity with the statute of the Muslim religious

organisation.  The letter stated further:

     "As the Directorate of Religious Denominations was

concerned with these irregularities as early as in the middle of

1994, it repeatedly ... urged the rapid resolution of the

problems ... Unfortunately no specific measures had been

undertaken ...  As a result the conflicts in the religious

community deepened, and the discontent among the Muslims rose,

which led 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 ...  The issues

concerning the participants, and the manner in which they are

determined ..., are not regulated.

     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 part of the Muslims

in Bulgaria.  Any other national conference, except if it were

organised by a joint committee [of the rival leaderships], would

raise the same problem.  Moreover, the decision of 3 January

1995 of the Supreme Spiritual Council to hold an extraordinary

national conference on 28 January 1995 is signed only by six

legitimate members of the Spiritual Council... [and] ... cannot

be regarded as being in conformity with the statute.

     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 beyond its competence when removing Mr.

N.G. from his position of Chief Mufti and that the decision of

the Directorate of 10 February 1992 could not have legal

consequences.

     Extremely worried as regards the current situation and

deeply concerned over the well-being of the Muslims in Bulgaria,

the Directorate of Religious Denominations supports the opinion

of the Chief Mufti, [the second applicant], that it is not

advisable to hurry with the holding of an extraordinary

conference before overcoming the conflicts in the religious

community ...

     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 make proof of good will and reach consensus

for the holding of a united conference ..."

      On 27 January 1995 the Supreme Spiritual Council presided over

by the second applicant announced that it had postponed the holding of

the national conference to 6 March 1995.

      Removal of the second applicant from his position of Chief Mufti

      On 22 February 1995 the Deputy Prime Minister of Bulgaria

Mr. Shivarov issued Decree No. P-12 which read as follows:

      "Based on Decree KV-15 of 6 February 1995 of the Council of

Ministers in conjunction with Section 6 of the Religious

Denominations Act, I approve the statute of the Muslim religion

in Bulgaria, based in Sofia."

      The statute of the Muslim religion in Bulgaria mentioned in the

decree was apparently the one adopted at the rival national conference,

organised by Mr. N.G. and held on 2 November 1994.  Decree KV-15,

referred to in the decision, apparently concerned the authorisation

given by the Council of Ministers to its Deputy Prime Minister, as

required under Section 6 of the Religious Denominations Act (see below

Relevant domestic law).

      On 23 February 1995 the Directorate of Religious Denominations

at the Council of Ministers issued a decision which stated that based

on Sections 6, 9 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act and Decree

P-12 of the Deputy Prime Minister, it had registered a new leadership

of the Bulgarian Muslim community.  The leadership thus registered

included Mr. N.G. as president of the Supreme Spiritual Council and,

apparently, those elected at the conference of 2 November 1994.

      Neither Decree P-12, nor the decision of the Directorate of

Religious Denominations gave any reasons, nor any explanation as

regards the procedure followed.  The decisions were not formally served

on the applicants, who learned about them from the press.

      On 27 February 1995 the newly registered leadership of the Muslim

community accompanied by private security guards entered the

headquarters of the Chief Mufti Office in Sofia, forcefully 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 the 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 Office and ten islamic

teachers, the fourth applicant among them, were allegedly dismissed.

The applicants have not substantiated any further details as regards

the alleged dismissals, such as their dates, the organs who ordered

them, or the procedure followed.

      On 27 February 1995, immediately after the take-over, the second

applicant submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Glavna

prokuratura) a request for assistance, stating that there had been an

unlawful mob action and that the persons who occupied the building of

the Chief Mufti Office were squatters who had to be evicted.  By

decisions of 8 and 28 March 1995 the prosecution authorities refused

the request.  They found inter alia 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.

      Appeal to the Supreme Court against Decree P-12

      On 23 March 1995, apparently in reply to a request from the

second applicant, the Directorate of Religious Denominations wrote to

him, in his capacity of a private person, a letter which stated inter

alia:

     "The Muslim religious community in Bulgaria ... 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 P-12 of

22 February 1995 ... sanctions an [organisational] change, which

the religious community itself wished to undertake ..."

      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 P-12 had replaced the

previous statute and that the registered new leadership had replaced

the second applicant.

      On 18 April 1995 the second applicant, acting on behalf of the

Chief Mufti Office, lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal against

Decree P-12.  He stated that on its face Decree P-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 was

done 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 Bulgaria could have only one leadership and one statute.

The State did not have the right to impose such view on the Muslims,

multiple religious organisations of one and the same religion being a

normal practice in other countries, as well as in Bulgaria.  Therefore

the Council of Ministers had acted beyond its powers.  The State

interference with the internal disputes of the religious community was

unlawful.  At the oral hearing held by the Court the second applicant

also stated that there had been an unlawful interference with the

religious liberties of the Muslims, as enshrined in the Constitution.

      The second applicant also submitted 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.  The second applicant asked the

Court either to declare Decree P-12 null and void as contrary to the

law or to declare that it constituted a registration of a new religious

community, the existing Muslim organisation being unaffected.

      On 27 July 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.  The

Court apparently accepted the locus standi of the first applicant, as

represented by the second applicant, and also found that it was

competent to examine the lawfulness of the impugned Decree P-12.

      On the merits 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.  Therefore, the Court's competence was limited to an

examination of whether the impugned act had been issued by the

competent administrative organ and whether the procedural requirements

had been complied with.  In this respect Decree P-12 was lawful.

      As regards the request for interpretation of Decree P-12, it was

not open to the Court, in the framework of the 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.

The national conference of 6 March 1995 and the appeal to the

Supreme Court against the refusal to register its decisions

      The national conference of the Muslims in Bulgaria organised by

the second applicant took place as planned on 6 March 1995.  The

minutes of the conference establish that it was attended by 1553

persons, of whom 1188 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 second applicant

was re-elected Chief Mufti.

      On 5 June 1995 the second applicant, acting on behalf of the

first applicant, submitted a petition to the Council of Ministers

requesting the registration of the new statute and leadership of the

Muslims in Bulgaria, as adopted by the conference of 6 March 1995.  On

6 October 1995 the second applicant submitted a second petition.

However, there was no response from the Council of Ministers.

      On an unspecified date the second applicant submitted to the

Supreme Court an appeal against the tacit refusal of the Council of

Ministers to register the decisions of the March conference.

      On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment.  The

Court noted that in 1992 the Chief Mufti Office, the first applicant,

had been duly registered as a religious denomination under Section 6

of the Religious Denominations Act and had thus become a legal person.

The Court also noted that the first applicant had not been deprived of

legal personality pursuant to Section 6 para. 2 of the same Act.

Therefore the Council of Ministers was under the 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.  As a result the Court decided that the tacit

refusal of the Council of Ministers was unlawful and ordered the

transmission of the file to the Council of Ministers, which had to

examine it.

      On 19 November 1996 Deputy Prime Minister Shivarov refused to

register the 1995 statute and leadership of the Chief Mufti Office, the

first applicant.  He wrote to the second applicant a letter stating

inter alia that the Council of Ministers had already registered "a

leadership of the Muslim community in Bulgaria", which was the

leadership elected by the November 1994 conference with Mr. N.G. as

President of the Supreme Spiritual Council.  The Deputy Prime Minister

concluded that the first applicant's request "cannot be granted as it

is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Religious Denominations

Act".

      On 5 December 1996 the second applicant, acting on behalf of the

first applicant, appealed to the Supreme Court against the refusal of

the Deputy Prime Minister.

      On 13 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the refusal of the

Council of Ministers to register the 1995 statute and leadership of the

first applicant.  Noting that this refusal was unlawful, the Supreme

Court also stated that it violated Section 13 of the Constitution as

it constituted "an interference and unlawful administrative

intervention into the internal organisation of [a] religious

community".  The Court ordered again the transmission of the file to

the Council of Ministers.

      In a partially dissenting opinion the minority stated that the

Supreme Court should not have returned the file, but should have

decided on the merits of the request for registration.

      On 24 March 1997 the second applicant again requested the Council

of Ministers to register the 1995 statute and leadership.

B.    Relevant domestic law and practice

1.    The Constitution of 1991.

Section 13

     "(1) The religions shall be free.

     (2) The religious institutions shall be separate from the

State.

     (3) Eastern Orthodox Christianity shall be considered the

traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria.

     (4) Religious institutions and communities, and religious

beliefs shall not be used to political ends."

Section 37

     "(1) The freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and

the choice of religion and of religious or atheistic views shall

be inviolable.  The State shall assist in the maintenance of

tolerance and respect among the believers of different

denominations, and among believers and non-believers.

     (2)   The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be

practised to the detriment of national security, public order,

public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of

others."

      Decision No. 5 of the Constitutional Court of 11 June 1992

provides a legally binding interpretation of the above provisions.  It

states inter alia that the legitimate grounds for interference with

one's freedom of religion as protected thereby cannot be subject to

extensive interpretations.  An Act of Parliament can only determine the

procedure for their enforcement.

2.    The relevant provisions of the Religious Denominations Act, as

in force at the time of the events at issue, read as follows.

     Section 6

     "(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.

     (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."

     Section 9

     "(1) Every religious denomination shall have a leadership

accountable to the State.

     (2) The statute of the religious denomination shall

establish its governing and representative bodies and the

procedure for their election and appointment... "

     Section 16

     "(1) The national governing bodies of the religious

denominations shall register with the Directorate of Religious

Denominations at the Council of Ministers, and the local

governing bodies with the local municipalities, and shall submit

a list of the names of all members of these governing bodies".

      The Act, which has been in force since 1949 with some amendments,

also lays down other rules as regards the activities of a religious

denomination, imposes requirements as regards its clergy and empowers

the Directorate of Religious Denominations with certain control

functions.  On 11 June 1992 the Constitutional Court repealed some of

its provisions which contravened the 1991 Constitution.

      The applicants contend 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 prove his powers.

3.    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 the religions",

assistance to central and local administrative authorities in solving

problems which involve religious matters and assistance to religious

organisations as regards education and publications.

4.    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.  The Administrative Procedure Act (Zakon za

administrativnoto proizvodstvo), which contains a general legal regime

on the procedure for the delivery of and appeal against administrative

decisions, provides in its Section 3 that it is not applicable as

regards the Council of Ministers' decisions.

5.    Under Section 110 of the Law on Obligations and Contracts the

general limitation period for civil claims is five years.

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention that

there has been an interference with their religious liberties, the

right of the believers and of the religious community to govern their

own affairs and to choose their leadership being an important part

thereof.  The applicants also invoke Article 11 of the Convention in

this respect.  Also, they complain that contrary to Article 13 of the

Convention they did not have an effective remedy.

      The applicants contend that the measures undertaken by the State

had the effect of replacing the statute and the leadership of the

Muslim religion in Bulgaria.  This was so because, following the

registration of the rival leaders by the Directorate of Religious

Denominations, no court, government body or indeed no person would

recognise the second applicant as a legitimate representative of the

Muslim religious community in Bulgaria.  Moreover, this replacement was

done through arbitrary decrees which gave no reasons and were issued

without even informing the parties concerned.  This State interference

was neither prescribed by law, nor necessary in a democratic society.

There were no clear legal grounds nor any reasonable legal criteria

on the basis of which the State could favour one wing of the divided

Muslim community to the detriment of another.  This, combined with the

unpredictable practice of the Directorate of Religious Denominations

and with the "full discretion" doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court,

amounts to complete arbitrariness.

      The applicants further submit that they were not afforded any

remedy providing at least basic procedural safeguards as regards the

interference with their right to freedom of religion.  Also, the

prosecution authorities refused to intervene following the eviction

on 27 February 1995 from the building of the Chief Mufti Office.

      As regards the effects of the Supreme Court's judgments of

14 October 1996 and 13 March 1997, the applicants contend that those

judgments did not change the situation in reality.  In any event, even

if registration is granted soon, the complaints about the events of

1995 - 1996 remain valid.

2.    The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that

they did not have a hearing before a tribunal in the determination of

their civil rights and obligations.  Thus, the Supreme Court found that

it was not competent to examine the merits of Decree P-12, which in

turn was issued without observing any procedural safeguards, by a

Deputy Prime Minister.

      Among the civil rights determined by Decree P-12 and the Supreme

Court's decision were the property rights of the first applicant, the

right of the Muslim believers to association, the right of the second

applicant to hold his position of Chief Mufti, and his and the other

applicants' rights under employment contracts.  Thus, the second

applicant had an employment contract as Chief Mufti, based on his

election in 1992.  This legal basis was destroyed by the impugned

decisions, which had the effect of replacing the Muslim religious

leadership registered in 1992.  Also, many other persons working for

the Muslim religious community were dismissed by the new Chief Mufti.

3.    The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention that they were deprived of their possessions and under

Article 13 that they did not have an effective remedy in this respect.

The applicants submit that the possessions in question included inter

alia the ownership of belongings and documents which they have not seen

since the eviction from the premises of the Chief Mufti's Office on

27 February 1995, the first applicant's right to use these premises,

its money in bank accounts, and the other applicants' rights under

employment contracts.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 22 January 1996 and registered

on 11 April 1996.

      On 24 February 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

      On 22 April 1997 the applicants submitted additional information

on their own motion.  A copy of their submissions was transmitted to

the respondent Government.

      The time-limit for the Government's written observations expired

on 2 May 1997.  The Government have not requested its extension.  By

letter of 14 May 1997 the Government were reminded that they had not

submitted observations.  By letter of 24 June 1997 the Government were

informed that the application was being considered for examination

during the Commission's session beginning on 8 September 1997 although

no observations had been received.

THE LAW

      The applicants complain under Article 9 (Art. 9) taken alone and

in conjunction with Article 13 (Art. 9+13) of the Convention that the

impugned acts of the authorities amounted to an unlawful, arbitrary and

unjustified interference with their religious liberties and that they

did not have an effective remedy in this respect.  The applicants

invoke also Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.  The applicants

further complain under  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (P1-1+13),

that they have been deprived of their possessions and that they did not

have an effective remedy in this respect.   They complain under Article

6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that they did not have a hearing on the

merits before a tribunal in the determination of certain civil rights

and obligations.

      The Commission notes that the Government have not submitted

written observations.

      The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case-law according

to which the parties must be invited to participate in the examination

of the facts by the Commission, though such an examination cannot be

hindered by the manner in which the parties in fact participate (cf.

mutatis mutandis, No. 8007/77, Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13 p. 85; cf. also

No. 22947 and 22948/93, Dec. 11.10.94, D.R. 79 p. 108).

      Having examined the applicants' complaints, the Commission finds

that they raise serious questions of fact and law which are of such

complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of

the merits.  The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other grounds for declaring it

inadmissible have been established.

      For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

      merits.

        H.C. KRÜGER                         S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                           President

     to the Commission                    of the Commission

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy