Information Note on the Court’s case-law 70
December 2004
Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria - 39023/97
Judgment 16.12.2004 [Section I]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
State interference with the internal organisation of the Muslim community: violation
Facts: The applicant organisation, the Holy Council of the Muslim Community of Bulgaria, is one of the rival factions which claims leadership of the Muslim community in the country. Since the late 1980s there have been changes in the leadership of this community. The changes in leadership were each time contested by the opposing group. The Court has already examined a dispute concerning such past events in Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [G.C.] (no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI). In 1995, the head of the applicant organisation, G., was reinstated as the officially recognised leader of the Muslim community in the country. Between 1996 and 1997, the ousted rival leader, H., made several attempts to restore his position, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. In April 1997 a new government was formed and the authorities urged the two rival leaders to negotiate a unification. In September 1997, the rival factions signed an agreement to convene a national unification conference of all Muslim believers. G. subsequently complained that the conference was not being organised in accordance with the statute of the organisation and that political figures had used threats for the election of candidates to the assembly. He also alleged that the manner of participation of the Directorate of Religious Denominations in the preparation of the conference was unacceptable State interference. The conference, which G. did not attend, was addressed by the Directorate of Religious Denominations, which apparently blamed G. for having withdrawn from the unification process. The conference elected a new leadership which included H. The new leadership was registered by the Deputy Prime Minister. The judicial appeals by the applicant organisation to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Government to register the new leadership were rejected, as the court found that the decision to hold a unification conference had been taken freely by the two rival groups.
Law: Article 9: Applicability – Although religious freedom was primarily a matter of individual conscience, an ecclesiastical or religious body could also, as such, exercise on behalf of its adherents the rights guaranteed by this provision. Article 9 was thus applicable to the complaints.
Compliance – State authorities may be required to engage in mediation among leaders or groups in a divided religious community. However, they must discharge such a duty with caution as this is a particularly delicate area. The manner in which the relevant law was applied in Bulgaria, which basically required leaders to bring the community under a single State-approved leadership, was a highly significant factor in this case. The authorities had insisted on “unification”, despite the fact that G. had decided to withdraw from the process. The results of the conference had resulted in the applicant organisation no longer being able to represent at least part of the religious community and manage its affairs and assets according to the will of that part of the community. There had thus been an interference with the applicant organisation’s rights under this provision. The Court accepted that the authorities’ concern was to restore legality and remedy the arbitrary removal of H. in 1995, and thus that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights and freedoms of others. As to the necessity of the interference, as the relevant law and practice, as well as the authorities’ actions in 1997, had the effect of compelling the divided community to have a single leadership against the will of one of the two rival leaderships, the authorities had gone beyond their margin of appreciation. It followed that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – The Supreme Administrative Court had examined the applicant’s complaint in the light of the applicable legal regime. It could not be considered that Article 13 required the provision of a remedy to challenge that regime.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant organisation 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© 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