AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 28626/95

                      by Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova"

                      (Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses)

                      against Bulgaria

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

3 July 1997, the following members being present:

           Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 D. SVÁBY

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 K. HERNDL

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs.  M. HION

           MM.   R. NICOLINI

                 A. ARABADJIEV

           Mr.   M. de SALVIA, Deputy 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 6 September 1995

by Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova" (Christian Association

Jehovah's Witnesses) against Bulgaria and registered on 21 September

1995 under file No. 28626/95;

      Having regard to:

-     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

      the Commission;

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 3 May

      1996 and 2 April 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by

      the applicant association on 21 June 1996 and 1 April 1997;

-     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 3 July 1997;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is an association which bears the name Khristiansko

Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova" (Christian Association Jehovah's

Witnesses).  Before the Commission it is represented by MM. Alain Garay

and Philippe Goni, lawyers practising in Paris.

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

summarised as follows.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

                       The applicant association

      There is disagreement between the parties as to the time when

followers of Jehovah's Witnesses first appeared in Bulgaria.  The

applicant association contends that there is information about

Jehovah's Witnesses' presence as early as in 1888.  The Government

maintain that they were unknown in Bulgaria before 1989.

      According to the applicant association the number of its members

and followers today in Bulgaria is between 500 and 1000.

      On 30 January 1991 the applicant association was founded by five

individuals at a meeting in Sofia.  The founders adopted a statute of

the association and elected a four-member board.  The statute provided

inter alia that the association's aims were: dissemination of the

truths of the Bible, training of clergymen, establishment and

enhancement of contacts among Jehovah's Witnesses in the country and

from abroad, and promotion of such moral values as honesty, morality,

rejection of drugs, alcohol and tobacco, respect for the family, and

obedience to the State authorities.  It was also stated that the

association would pursue its aims by organising, among other things,

meetings of followers, translation and publication of religious

materials and teaching.  Section 8 of the statute provided that a

member is free to leave the association at any time.

      The board members applied to the Sofia City Court (Gradski sad)

for registration as a non-profit association under the Persons and

Family Act (Zakon za litzata i semeistvoto).

      The Court held a hearing on the matter with the participation of

a prosecutor, who stated that the association should be registered as

the legal requirements were met.  On 17 July 1991 the Court registered

the applicant association, whereupon, in accordance with the  Persons

and Family Act, it obtained legal personality.  In its decision the

Court stated that all necessary documents had been presented and were

in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Persons and Family

Act.

      The Public Prosecutor's Office (Prokuratura), whose task in

registration proceedings is the defence of the public interest, did not

challenge the applicant association's registration before the Supreme

Court (Vathoven sad), as it could have done under the law within seven

days.

         Refusal of authorisation to the applicant association

      On 18 February 1994 the Persons and Family Act was amended to the

effect that religious associations were required to re-register subject

to consent by the Council of Ministers (see below Relevant domestic

law).  This amendment aimed at the unification of the legal regime in

respect of religious organisations, because under the Religious

Denominations Act (Zakon za izpovedaniata), a religious community needs

the authorisation of the Council of Ministers in order to acquire the

status of a recognised religious denomination.

      On 23 March 1994 the applicant association submitted to the

Council of Ministers a petition requesting authorisation for re-

registration.  The judgment of the Sofia City Court of 17 July 1991 and

the statute of the applicant association were enclosed therewith.

      On several occasions during the following three months

representatives of the applicant association unsuccessfully requested

to meet officials from the Directorate of Religious Denominations

(Direktzia po veroizpovedaniata) at the Council of Ministers in order

to present their arguments on the matter.

      On 17 June 1994 the daily newspaper "24 Hours" published an

article which explained that the Council of Ministers had refused

authorisation for the re-registration of 24 religious communities and

named the applicant association and several others among them.

      On 23 June 1994 the applicant association submitted a petition

to the Council of Ministers citing the published information and asking

for an official decision.

      On 28 June 1994 the Council of Ministers adopted Decision No. 255

thereby granting authorisation for the registration of 17 associations

and refusing it for 24 others including the applicant association.  The

decision stated that it was based on Section 133a and the transitional

provision of the Persons and Family Act; no further reasoning was

provided.

      The applicant association did not receive an official copy of

this decision.  Members of the applicant association first became aware

of its contents on 5 August 1994 during a police action in the town of

Haskovo (see below Suppression of the applicant association's

meetings).  On 9 September 1994 Decision No. 255 was published in the

State Gazette, the official organ of the State.

      On 15 September 1994 the applicant association appealed to the

Supreme Court (Varhoven sad) against this decision.  In their written

submissions the representatives of the applicant association stated

inter alia that the decision contravened the relevant provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act (Zakon za administrativnoto proizvodstvo)

and Article 6 of the Convention as no reasons whatsoever had been given

for the refusal of authorisation.  Also, the decision amounted to a

breach of the applicant's rights under the Constitution and under

Articles 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Convention because Jehovah's

Witnesses' activities did not fall within any of the grounds allowing

restrictions on the exercise of the right to association, and of the

freedoms of religion and of expression.

      The applicant association further stated in brief some principles

of Jehovah's Witnesses' religious philosophy emphasising their

dedication to morality, respect for the public order and for the

family.  Also, the history of their religion clearly showed that they

attached utmost importance to peace and did "not take part in the wars

of the nations", while having full respect for the convictions of

others and, consequently, acknowledging and not interfering with the

authority of the State to maintain armed forces.

      The Council of Ministers made written submissions in response

stating that Section 133a and the transitional provision of the

Persons and Family Act did not place any restriction on the exercise

of the Council of Ministers' discretion whether or not to authorise the

registration of a religious association.  Therefore, and since the

Supreme Court was not competent to examine on the merits a Council of

Ministers' decision which had been within the latter's discretionary

powers, the appeal was considered to be inadmissible.

      Alternatively, the Council of Ministers contended that Decision

No. 255 was in conformity with the Constitution and that the Council

of Ministers had taken into account the "international practice and the

social practice in the country".  Also, the decision was not arbitrary

as it had been taken "on the basis of the assessments of various

experts".

      The Council of Ministers contended that the statute of the

applicant association did not correspond to the essence of Jehovah's

Witnesses' religion and to their practices "as they [were] known around

the world".  This was so because, inter alia,

           "... ninety-nine percent of the pertinent bibliography,

      predominantly in English, indicate that notwithstanding the

      allegation of Watch Tower, the managing body of [Jehovah's

      Witnesses'] community, that their doctrine is Christian and that

      it is based on the Bible, in fact it denies almost all basic

      Christian concepts.  It is known that Jehovah's Witnesses have

      made their own translation of the Bible, which is a forgery from

      a linguistic and a historical point of view."

      Also, it was not true that Jehovah's Witnesses had respect for

the law and for the public order.  Rather, "it [was] well known that

they [had] a doctrine requiring the replacement of the civil society

by a theocratic society, which [was] contrary to the Constitution of

Bulgaria".  Furthermore, it was forbidden for Jehovah's Witnesses to

take oath before the national flag or to honour other State symbols,

as well as to serve in the army.  In fact, this had been admitted by

the applicant association which had stated in its appeal that its

followers did not take part in wars.

      Moreover, Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of blood transfusions

was contrary to the law and deprived the members of the religious group

of their constitutional right of choice in respect of their health and

life.   Also, the creed at issue involved the devaluation of human

life, a hostile attitude towards science, labelled as devil's act, and

incitement to social marginalisation.  Many authors had found that the

level of psychiatric illnesses among Jehovah's Witnesses was higher

than among other people.  Moreover, there had been cases of mass

suicide.

      The Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter.  In response to

the Government's submissions, the applicant association stated inter

alia that it was absurd to accept that the Council of Ministers could

enjoy a discretion beyond the provisions of the Constitution and the

Convention and that therefore the Supreme Court was competent to

examine the constitutionality of the impugned decision.

      On 13 March 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.  The

judgment, insofar as relevant, states as follows:

           "I.   As to the admissibility of the appeal.

           ... the [Supreme Court's] competence to examine disputes as

      regards the lawfulness of the Council of Ministers' acts is

      derived from Section 125 para. 2 of the Constitution and Section

      99 para. 2 of the Act on the Judiciary ...  Therefore, the

      Supreme Court is competent to examine the lawfulness of the

      impugned decision.

           II.   On the merits.

           Examined on the merits, the appeal is ill-founded.

           Under the new Section 133a and the first paragraph of the

      transitional provision of the Persons and Family Act, the Council

      of Ministers is empowered to authorise the registration of legal

      persons, which are non-profit associations ... [engaged in

      religious activities].  This legal regime does not provide for

      the participation of the petitioner in the process of the

      examination of the petition.

           The limitations on religious denominations are enunciated

      in the provisions of Section 37 para. 2 of the Constitution and

      Article 9 para. 2 of the Convention, which is in force in respect

      of Bulgaria as from 7 September 1992.  The question whether the

      aims declared in the [applicant association's] draft statute of

      association are in compliance with the exhaustive list of

      limitations contained in the above provisions, is within the

      competence of the highest organ of the executive power, who

      decides on the basis of its free assessment.  The judicial

      control of lawfulness in such a case is limited to an examination

      whether the impugned act is within the administrative organ's

      competence and whether it complies with the procedural and

      substantial legal requirements as regards its adoption.

           In the present case the Council of Ministers, when adopting

      the impugned refusal, acted within its competence under the law

      (Section 133a of the Persons and Family Act).  The competence

      requirements and the procedure for the examination of the

      petition were respected.  The act has a reasoning, as the legal

      ground for its adoption was indicated.

           The issue whether the draft statute of the [applicant

      association] is in conformity with the limitations provided for

      by law is within the competence of the Council of Ministers and

      cannot be the subject to the present judicial control."

      It appears that despite Decision No. 255 of the Council of

Ministers and its confirmation by the Supreme Court, the applicant

association's registration at the Sofia City Court remained intact.

However, on an unspecified date in 1997 a prosecutor requested the

Sofia City Court to annul this registration.

          Suppression of the applicant association's meetings

      On 5 August 1994 in the town of Haskovo police officers blocked

the entrance of the convention hall where Jehovah's Witnesses were

holding a national meeting with the participation of about 400 persons.

The police explained that Jehovah's Witnesses had been refused

authorisation by the Council of Ministers and that they had not

requested permission from the mayor for their convention.  The police

produced a copy of Decision No. 255 of 28 June 1994 of the Council of

Ministers.  The participants dispersed peacefully.

      On 17 October 1994 the mayor of the town of Targovishte issued

order No. 458 prohibiting the "use of municipal property for religious

services and marches in the open [organised by] religious denominations

which are not registered in the region of Targovishte municipality".

Copies of the order were sent inter alia to the District Prosecutor's

Office and to the police.

      On 15 November 1994 the Director of Religious Denominations at

the Council of Ministers sent a letter to the mayor of Sofia stating

that he had information about public meetings of unregistered religious

denominations, which had been held in municipal premises.  The letter

stated further that " ... such associations do not enjoy the privileged

status under the Religious Denominations Act (Zakon za izpovedaniata)

with the ensuing consequences" and insisted that the production of a

certificate for registration should be requested as a condition for

renting municipal premises.  The Director also stated that on "special

occasions" the assistance of the police should be sought "according to

the criteria laid down in Section 37 para. 2 of the Constitution".

      On 5 March 1995 in the town of Plovdiv five policemen armed with

pistols and a carbine broke into a private apartment where about 30

Jehovah's Witnesses were holding a meeting and confiscated religious

materials.  At least two persons were arrested, held at the police

station for several hours and ordered to explain in writing the nature

of the meeting.  They also had to sign warning forms, thereby

undertaking not to engage in organised preaching for Jehovah's

Witnesses and acknowledging that they were aware of the potential

liability in case of non-compliance.

      On 13 May 1995 in the town of Kiustendil the police disrupted a

meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses and brought some of them to the police

station.  At least one of the participants was interrogated by an

investigating judge.  The questions concerned the nature of the

Jehovah's Witnesses' creed, the names of members and followers in

Kiustendil, the financial sources of the religious community and its

links with foreigners.

      Following some of the police actions complaints were submitted

to the competent Prosecutor's Offices.  The results of any proceedings

taken on this basis have not been disclosed.

                  Seizure of books and other measures

      Since May 1994 the Sofia customs office has refused to allow the

importation of religious books sent to the address of the applicant

association. The materials sent between 15 June and 1 July 1994 have

been returned to the sender.

      On 14 July 1994 Mr. B. and Ms. C., Jehovah's Witnesses from the

town of Assenovgrad, were arrested for several hours as they were

offering religious books to the public.  The books found in their

possession were confiscated.  Mr. B. was allegedly beaten by the

police.  On 27 July 1994 the director of the local police sent a letter

to the municipal education authority indicating that Ms. C., who was

a teacher, had been arrested while visiting private homes and

distributing books of Jehovah's Witnesses, an activity "for which she

had not obtained authorisation".  The letter further stated that

Jehovah's Witnesses had been refused re-registration and that their

activities were illegal.

      On 24 September 1994 Ms. T. was arrested for several hours in the

town of Razgrad and some 200 copies of religious materials were

confiscated from her.  Similar arrests in Razgrad of two other

Jehovah's Witnesses, again followed by seizures, took place on 23 and

28 January 1995.

      On 8 March 1995 religious books were confiscated from three

Jehovah's Witnesses in the town of Burgas.

      On all occasions, when religious books were confiscated in

various places of the country, the police filled out official forms for

searches, seizures or for voluntary surrender of movables, which are

normally used in the course of police inquiries and criminal

proceedings.  Some forms indicated that the seizures had been effected

in accordance with Sections 134 - 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Nakazatelno-protzesualen kodeks) (see below Relevant domestic law).

Other forms did not state any legal basis.  Most of the documents did

not contain any reference to particular criminal proceedings, the

pertinent place which existed in some of the forms having been left

blank.  Not all of the seizures had been authorised by a prosecutor in

writing.

      Between October 1994 and March 1995 three Polish citizens, who

were followers of Jehovah's Witnesses, were expelled from the country.

The decisions stated as grounds for the expulsions that the persons

concerned were "members of and worked for Jehovah's Witnesses, a sect

which is banned in the Republic of Bulgaria".

                       Publications in the media

      Since 1992 the Bulgarian press has been publishing numerous

information and comments about religious "sects" and, in particular,

about Jehovah's Witnesses.  The applicant association refer in

particular to some 120 publications dating between March 1993 and July

1995, presented in full text or by their title.  The publications are

from 23 newspapers.  The majority thereof contains information and

allegations about, inter alia, unnatural practices and rituals, the

incitement of young people to suicidal acts, and fraudulent preaching.

Sects are often depicted as executors of the will of foreign powers and

interests.

      The Government dispute the pertinence of most of the press

material stating that part of it concerns other sects, and that the

choice of articles is arbitrary, the resulting impression not

reflecting adequately the attitude of the press.  Thus, the press has

published an interview with Mr. Garay, the applicant association's

representative, and other material.

      Some of the articles submitted by the applicant association

contain interviews of the Director of Religious Denominations, who

explained that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses was a threat to

public health, morals and national security inter alia because it

rejected blood transfusions, lacked respect for State symbols and for

the law, and marginalised young people.   In an interview published on

8 November 1994 in "Trud" the Director stated inter alia that "it is

established that Jehovah's Witnesses suffer from psychological

problems, and that schizophrenia, neurosis, etc. occur more frequently

among them."  In an article of 26 June 1996 the newspaper "24 hours"

presented the following statement of Mr. K, from the Directorate of

Religious Denominations: "[Jehovah's Witnesses] endanger the national

security and the life of the people...  Different religious

organisations which pursue political aims are entering Bulgaria..."

In some other articles the police and the Bulgarian Orthodox Christian

Church were mentioned as the sources of information as regards the

alleged unnatural practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

      Some of the publications contain explanations from official

sources as regards the legal meaning and the consequences of Decision

No. 255 of the Council of Ministers.  Thus in his interview of 8

November 1994 the Director of Religious Denominations explained that

any individual follower of Jehovah's Witnesses was "free to practise

this religion, thus assuming a personal responsibility".  However, the

State could not give "legal status" to sects whose practice had been

contrary to the law.  Other publications cite sources from the police

and local officials and qualify the unregistered sects as banned and

the practice of their religion as strictly prohibited.

      The press also covered extensively some police actions against

the applicant association and other "sects".  Some journalists stated

that certain police actions had been requested by the Directorate of

Religious Denominations.  Many of these publications in various

newspapers explained that the followers of unregistered sects were

criminally liable for having participated in meetings or for possessing

religious books and that proceedings against them were to be

instituted.  Measures, such as seizures and arrests were depicted as

a necessary and lawful consequence of the refusal of the Council of

Ministers to authorise the registration of certain sects.  A large

number of articles had titles which used shocking expressions.  Also,

the majority of the publications urged the authorities to deal quickly

and mercilessly with the sects.  In some articles the police was

criticised as it allegedly did not act resolutely and in others it was

praised for having dispersed meetings, confiscated books or arrested

followers.

      On several occasions the applicant association approached various

privately owned newspapers with a request to publish responses to the

allegations concerning Jehovah's Witnesses.  However, all newspapers

allegedly refused to publish any statement or material offered by the

applicant association.

B.    Relevant domestic law and practice

1.    The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows:

       Section 13

           "(1) The religious denominations 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 for 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 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."

      Chlen 13

     "(1) Veroizpovedaniata sa svobodni.

     (2) Religioznite institutzii sa otdeleni ot darzhavata.

     (3) Traditzionnata religia v Republika Bulgaria e

iztochnopravoslavnoto veroizpovedanie.

     (4) Religioznite obshtnosti i institutzii, kakto i verskite

ubezhdenia ne mogat da se izpolzvat za politicheski tzeli."

Chlen 37

     "(1) Svobodata na savestta, svobodata na misalta i na

izbora na veroizpovedanie i na religiozni ili ateistichni

vazgledi sa nenakarnimi. Darzhavata sadeistva za poddarzhane na

tarpimost i uvazhenie mezhdu viarvashtite ot razlichni

veroizpovedania, kakto i mezhdu viarvashti i neviarvashti.

     (2) Svobodata na savestta i veroizpovedanieto ne mozhe da

bade nasochena sreshtu natzionalnata sigurnost, obshtestvenia

red, narodnotot zdrave i morala ili sreshtu pravata i svobodite

na drugi grazhdani."

      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 a

person's freedom of religion as contained therein cannot be subject to

lenient interpretations.  An act of Parliament can only determine the

procedure for their enforcement.

       Section 58 para. 2

           "(2) Religious or other beliefs shall not be a ground to

      refuse the discharge of obligations established under the

      Constitution or Acts of Parliament."

       Section 59

           "(1) The defence of the fatherland shall be a duty and a

      matter of honour of every Bulgarian citizen...

           (2) The carrying out of military obligations, and the

      conditions and procedure for exemption therefrom or for replacing

      them with alternative service shall be established by an Act of

      Parliament."

Chlen 58 al. 2

     "(2) Religioznite i drugite ubezhdenia ne sa osnovanie za

otkaz da se izpalniavat zadalzheniata, ustanoveni v

Konstitutziata i zakonite."

Chlen 59

     "(1) Zashtitata na otechestvoto e dulg i chest za vseki

bulgarski grazhdanin...

     (2) Izpalnenieto na voinskite zadalzhenia, usloviata i

redat za osvobozhdavaneto ot tiah ili za zamianata im s

alternativna sluzhba se urezhdat sas zakon."

2.    The Religious Denominations Act, in force since 1949 with some

amendments, provides that a "religious denomination", whose statute has

been approved by the Council of Ministers, "becomes recognised and

obtains legal personality".  The Act further lays down elaborate rules

as regards the structure, management and activities of a religious

denomination, imposes requirements as regards its clergy and empowers

the Directorate of Religious Denominations with certain control

functions.  The Bulgarian Orthodox Christian Church and other religious

denominations are governed by this Act.  Section 20 of the Act provides

that the creation of associations with religious aims is within the

ambit of the general laws and administrative regulations.

3.    The Persons and Family Act regulates, inter alia, the

registration of non-profit associations.  Sections 134 - 148 contain

the requirements as regards the founding of such associations.  These

requirements concern the rules for membership, the structure, the

election and competence of the governing bodies and the contents of the

association's statute.

      Section 136 para. 1 provides as follows.

           "A non-profit association shall be registered upon a

      petition submitted by its governing board. The founding decision

      and the statute signed by the founders, as well as proof of

      compliance with the requirements of the law as regards the

      existence of the association shall be enclosed therewith."

Chlen 136 al. 1

     "Vpisvaneto na sdruzhenieto stava po molba na upravitelnia

savet, kam koiato triabva da se prilozhat reshenieto za

osnovavaneto mu i ustavat na sashtoto, podpisan ot osnovatelite,

kakto i dokazatelstva, che sa izpalneni iziskvaniata na

osobenite zakoni za sashtestvuvaneto na sdruzhenieto."

      Section 133a and the transitional provision, which were

introduced on 15 February 1994, read as follows:

       Section 133a

           "Legal persons, which are non-profit organisations and

      whose activities are typical for a religious denomination, or who

      perform religious or educational religious activities, shall be

      registered under this chapter after having obtained the consent

      of the Council of Ministers."

       Transitional Provision

           "(1)  Registered legal persons which are non-profit

      organisations under Section 133a shall be re-registered upon a

      petition submitted by their managing boards in a three months'

      time limit following this Law's entry into force, provided that

      there has been a consent from the Council of Ministers.

           (2)   The registration of legal persons which are non-profit

      organisations and have failed to comply with the requirements of

      the preceding paragraph shall be cancelled and their activities

      suspended."

Chlen 133a

     "Yuridicheskite litza s nestopanska tzel, koito izvarshvat

deinost, prisashta na izpovedanie, ili osashtestviavat

religiozna ili religioznoprosvetna deinost, se registrirat po

reda na tazi glava, sled saglasie na Ministerskia savet."

Prehodna razporedba (D.V. br. 15 ot 1994)

     "(1) Vpisanite do sega yuridicheski litza s nestopanska

tzel, posocheni v chlen 133a, se preregistrirat po iskane na

tehnite rakovodni organi, napraveno v srok ot tri mesetza ot

vlizaneto na tozi zakon v sila, pri saglasie na Ministerskia

savet.

     (2) Zalichava se vpisvaneto i se prekratiava deinostta na

yuridicheski litza s nestopanska tzel, koito ne izpalniavat

usloviata po predhodnata alineia."

4.    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.

      Also, the Directorate is competent to exercise the "control

provided for in Section 133a of the Persons and Family Act".  According

to Section 4 of the Decree, a standing consultative committee at the

Directorate is entrusted with "providing opinions on the petitions for

registration of new religions and participating in the exercise of

control on religious activities".

5.    There are no procedural provisions under Bulgarian law

specifically applicable to the examination by the Council of Ministers

of a petition for authorisation of a religious association.  The

Administrative Procedure Act, which contains a general legal regime

concerning the procedure for the delivery of and appeal against

administrative decisions, expressly excludes the Council of Ministers'

decisions.

      In its decision no. 13 of 22 July 1993 (resh. 13 po k.d. 13/93,

D.V. br. 65/93), which provides a binding interpretation of Section 125

para. 2 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has stated that

the judicial control over the acts of the executive does not infringe

their independence as it is limited only to issues of lawfulness.  The

courts cannot decide issues on which the administration enjoys full

discretion and "cannot control the exercise of the administrative

organ's free discretion ..."

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant association complains under Article 9 of the

Convention.

      It submits that the Council of Ministers' decision, which was in

reality taken by the Directorate of Religious Denominations, had in

effect officially prohibited the practice and manifestation of the

Jehovah's Witnesses' religion in Bulgaria.  One and the same State

organ, after having decided arbitrarily and as a sole instance on the

"unlawfulness" of the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious beliefs, acted

brutally and persistently to suppress them.  This was done by the

Directorate inter alia through directly ordered police actions,

instructions to local officials, hostile statements in the press and

general support for a media "campaign" against the applicant

association.

      All these acts and practices were unlawful as they were

arbitrary.  Furthermore, it was unlawful to interpret a refusal for the

registration of an association as amounting to official prohibition to

practise a certain religion.  However, this was how the Persons and

Family Act and Decision No. 255 were interpreted and applied by the

central and local authorities.  The acts of the authorities were

unlawful also because they were in breach of Section 37 of the

Constitution and Section 3(6) of Decree No. 125 of 6 December 1990

which provided that the State, and in particular the Directorate of

Religious Denominations, should contribute to the creation of a climate

of tolerance in religious matters.

      The specific acts of suppression of the applicant association's

activities, such as dispersing meetings held in convention halls and

in private apartments, seizure of religious books, and arrests, were

also unlawful, as they had no basis in Bulgarian law.

      Furthermore, the decisions in the applicant association's case

and the suppression of its activities were not necessary in a

democratic society, these measures having been drastic and incompatible

with the basic values of tolerance and pluralism.  Therefore, they were

disproportionate to any conceivable legitimate aim.  Moreover, Bulgaria

was the only member of the Council of Europe refusing registration to

Jehovah's Witnesses.

2.    The applicant association complains under Article 10 of the

Convention of the media "campaign" allegedly launched against it by the

authorities, of the alleged impossibility to publish materials in

response, and of the seizure and restrictions imposed on the receipt

and dissemination of religious books.

      Thus a significant amount of the hostile publications in the

press consisted of declarations and interviews of state officials or

other information cited from official sources.  These statements of the

authorities formed the public opinion and led to the refusal of

privately owned newspapers to publish materials defending adverse

views.

      These actions of the authorities, as well as the refusal of the

customs authorities to allow the importation of religious materials and

their  seizure by the police, had no basis in Bulgarian law and were

not necessary in a democratic society.

3.    The applicant association also complains under Article 11 of the

Convention.

      Thus, pursuant to the amendment of the Persons and Family Act,

a religious association has no choice but to apply for authorisation

by the Council of Ministers and, if refused, to suspend its activities.

In the applicant association's case the Council of Ministers refused

authorisation arbitrarily and without providing any reasons, which

rendered its act unlawful.  Thereupon the activities of the applicant

association were officially prohibited and forcefully suppressed on the

basis of an unlawful decision.  Also, the peaceful assemblies organised

by the applicant association were dispersed by the police without any

legal basis.

      Furthermore, the interferences with the applicant association's

rights under Article 11 of the Convention did not have a legitimate

purpose, but rather aimed directly at suppressing its freedom of

religion.  The applicant association did not pose any threat under

para. 2 of Article 11 of the Convention.  This was so because, inter

alia, the Bulgarian courts had already examined in 1991 the applicant

association's activities and had found them to be lawful.

4.    The applicant association complains under Article 14 in

conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that the Council of

Ministers refused some petitions for authorisation and granted others

without any reasoning, which rendered the difference in treatment

unjustified and discriminatory.  Furthermore, the rule in Section 133a

of the Persons and Family Act is discriminatory as it distinguishes

between religious and non-religious associations by requiring

authorisation only for the former.

5.    The applicant association complains under Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention that it was denied access to an independent and

impartial tribunal in the determination of its civil rights.  The civil

rights involved were the right of a non-profit organisation which had

met the requirements of the law to acquire legal personality and also

the right to association as enshrined in the Bulgarian Constitution.

These rights were determined in a final manner by the Council of

Ministers, which was neither independent nor a tribunal, and which

decided without hearing the applicant association, did not provide any

reasoning and acted in breach of basic safeguards of administrative

procedure as they exist under Bulgarian law.  The guarantees of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention were not afforded by the Supreme

Court either, as the Court found itself not competent to examine the

substance of the legal dispute.

      In its written observations the applicant association also

invokes Article 13 of the Convention alleging that it did not have any

effective remedy against the breaches of Articles 9, 10 and 11.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 6 September 1995 and registered

on 21 September 1995.

      On 21 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on 3 May

1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.  The

applicant association replied on 21 June 1996.

      On 20 January 1997 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on

the admissibility and merits of the application.

      The hearing took place on 3 July 1997, after an adjournment

requested by the respondent Government.  The Government were

represented by Mrs. Violina Djidjeva, co-agent, Ministry of Justice.

The applicant association was represented by MM. Alain Garay, Philippe

Goni and Michel de Guillenchmidt, avocats à la Cour, Paris, France, and

by Mr. Lioubomir Kioutchokov, founding member of the applicant

association.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant association complains under Articles 9, 10, 11 and

14 (Art. 9, 10, 11, 14) of the Convention that it was refused

authorisation to re-register, that its activities are suppressed, and

of the alleged media campaign against it.  It also complains under

Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 (Art. 6-1, 13) of the Convention in respect

of the proceedings leading to the refusal of authorisation.

      The Commission notes at the outset that part of the events

complained of relate to acts of the authorities such as intrusions in

private premises, arrests, and seizures of books affecting individual

members of the association, who have not submitted applications to the

Commission.

      In this respect the Government submit that the applicant

association cannot complain, under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the

Convention, of alleged breaches of the rights of its members.  The

Government also submit that the individual members have not exhausted

the remedies available to them.  Thus, as regards the arrests, searches

and seizures complained of, they are free to appeal to the prosecutor,

as provided for under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

      The applicant association explains that the events affecting

individual members are relied upon only as examples to illustrate the

consequences of the refusal of authorisation for the association's

renewed registration.

      The Commission finds, therefore, that it is not called upon to

deal with alleged breaches of the rights of individual members of the

applicant association, but has to examine only the complaints

concerning the association.

2.    In their written submissions the Government raised a preliminary

objection that the application was an abuse of the right of individual

petition.  Thus, the applicant association continues its activities in

Bulgaria despite the provision of Article 133a of the Persons and

Family Act under which its activities are suspended.  According to the

Government the application also contains defamatory statements against

the Bulgarian authorities, biased interpretation of the domestic law,

and  quotations of isolated paragraphs of press articles.  This

allegedly amounts to an attempt to mislead the Commission.

      At the oral hearing before the Commission the Government also

claimed that the applicant association did not have locus standi to

bring an application to the Commission under Article 25 (Art. 25) of

the Convention.  The Government maintained that the applicant

association did not have legal personality and that this was due to the

association's own negligence as it failed to submit a request for re-

registration to the Sofia City Court before 22 May 1994, within the

three months' time-limit under the 1994 amendment to the Persons and

Family Act.

      The applicant association disputes the Government's position.

      The Commission considers that the Government's argument that

there has been an abuse of the right of petition within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention could only be accepted

if it were clear that the applicant association had knowingly based its

application on untrue facts.  However, this is far from clear at the

present stage of the proceedings and it is therefore impossible to

reject the application on this ground (cf.  No. 22497/93, Dec. 20.2.95,

D.R. 80, p. 138; No. 24760/94, Dec. 27.6.96, D.R. 86 pp. 54, 68).

      As regards Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, the Commission

recalls that an application under this provision can be brought, inter

alia, by a "non-governmental organisation" or a "group of individuals"

which claims to be a victim of a violation of the Convention (cf.,

e.g., No. 8440/78, Dec. 16.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 138).  According to the

Commission's case-law non-governmental organisations include also

religious associations without legal personality (cf. No. 8652/79, Dec.

15.10.81, D.R. 26, p. 89).

      Therefore, the Commission need not decide whether the applicant

association, which apparently is still formally registered at the Sofia

City Court, has or does not have legal personality. Moreover, the

applicant association's complaints concern precisely the acts of the

authorities to suppress it.

      The Government's preliminary objections must therefore fail.

3.    The applicant association complains under Articles 9, 10, 11 and

14 (Art. 9, 10, 11, 14) of the Convention that it was refused

authorisation to re-register, that its activities are suppressed, and

of the alleged media campaign against it.

a)    In their initial observations the Government stated that the

applicant association had exhausted all domestic remedies and had

complied with the six months' time-limit within the meaning of Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.  The Government stated, inter alia,

that under Section 133a and the transitional provision of the Persons

and Family Act the Council of Ministers' authorisation was a conditio

sine qua non for the re-registration of a religious association.  The

Government also explained that the effect of the 1994 amendment of the

Persons and Family Act was that all religious associations had to

suspend their activities immediately, upon the amendment's entry into

force in February 1994, and to wait for the Council of Ministers'

authorisation.  They could only resume their activities if the Council

of Ministers' decision was favourable.

      At the oral hearing before the Commission the Government altered

their position on this question.  The Government now maintain that

under Section 133a and the transitional provision of the Persons and

Family Act, introduced in February 1994, a religious association had

to submit a request to the competent court for renewed registration

within three months of the amendment's entry into force and,

simultaneously or subsequently, to request an authorisation from the

Council of Ministers.

      The Government maintain that if the applicant association had

seized the Sofia City Court, the proceedings before that Court would

have been suspended until the Council of Ministers' decision on the

request for authorisation.  Then, after receipt of the decision of the

Council of Ministers, the Sofia City Court would have examined the

petition for re-registration and would have delivered a reasoned

judgment.  Furthermore, in case this judgment was unfavourable to the

association, the latter could have then appealed to a civil chamber of

the Supreme Court.

      In the Government's view, as maintained at the oral hearing, the

association's registration was suspended, but not as a result of the

Council of Ministers' Decision No. 255.  Since the applicant

association failed to submit a request to the Sofia City Court for

renewed registration within the required three months' time-limit, its

registration was automatically suspended upon the expiry of this time-

limit, and took effect on 22 May 1994.

      The Government further submit that as a result the six months'

period under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention ran from 22 May

1994 and that, consequently, the application to the Commission was

late.

      The applicant association replies that the transitional provision

of the Persons and Family Act does not specify whether the request for

re-registration had to be submitted first to the competent court and

then to the Council of Ministers or vice versa.  Since the important

element is the authorisation by the Council of Ministers, without which

no re-registration is possible, the applicant association found it

logical to lodge its petition with the Council of Ministers, and it did

so within the three months' time-limit.  Furthermore, neither the

Council of Ministers, nor the Supreme Court when examining the appeal

against Decision No. 255, found any procedural irregularity.  They

accepted that the request, and the appeal, respectively, were

admissible from a procedural point of view and examined them.

      The applicant association further submits that the role of the

Sofia City Court under the amended regime for the registration of

religious associations is purely technical, namely, to order the

cancellation of an existing registration or its renewal depending on

whether the Council of Ministers has given an authorisation.

      The Commission recalls that Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention only requires normal recourse by an applicant to such

remedies as are effective, sufficient and available.  For a remedy to

be effective, it must be, inter alia, capable of remedying the

criticised state of affairs directly.  Moreover, a remedy must exist

with a sufficient degree of certainty to be regarded as effective (No.

26384/95, Dec. 26.6.96, D.R. 86 p. 143).

      The Commission also recalls that the application of the rule of

exhaustion of domestic remedies must make due allowance for the fact

that it is being applied in the context of machinery for the protection

of human rights that the Contracting States have agreed to set up.

Accordingly the Court has recognised that Article 26 (Art. 26) must be

applied in a manner corresponding to the reality of the applicant's

situation, with some degree of flexibility and without excessive

formalism (see Eur. Court HR, Airey v. Ireland judgement of 9 October

1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12 para. 23; Cardot v. France judgment of 19

March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18 para. 34; Akdivar v. Turkey

judgment of 16 September 1996, para. 69, to be published in Reports of

Judgments and Decisions 1996).

      In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant

association complains, in essence, that following the amendment of the

Persons and Family Act in 1994 it was refused its right to function as

a religious association and to continue its activities.  The Government

now maintain that this was the result of the association's own

procedural mistake, as it wrongly addressed its request for

authorisation to re-register and that, therefore, the requirements of

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention have not been complied with.

      The Commission notes that the transitional provision of the

Persons and Family Act does not state whether a religious association,

in order to comply with the three months' time-limit for requesting re-

registration, has to submit first a request to the court where it was

registered, or must commence by addressing directly the Council of

Ministers with a petition for authorisation.  Moreover, even the

Government's interpretation of the law appears to be contradictory.

      In any event, it is undisputed that without the Council of

Ministers' authorisation it is impossible to obtain re-registration and

that the courts are not competent to revise the Council of Ministers'

assessment.  As a result, and based on the text of  Section 133a and

the transitional provision of the Persons and Family Act, it appears

that the Sofia City Court, if it was seised with a request for re-

registration, would have no power either to reconsider the issue of

authorisation or to order re-registration in defiance of the Council

of Ministers' refusal.  Therefore, a petition to the Sofia City Court

for re-registration cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in

respect of the applicant association's complaints.

      Finally, even assuming that the applicant association's

registration may have been considered cancelled ex lege on 22 May 1994,

when the three months' time-limit expired, it appears clear that this

would not have had irreversible consequences if the Council of

Ministers had later given its authorisation.  The applicant association

could then have applied for a fresh registration under Section 133a.

It was unable to do so because of Decision No. 255.

      The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicant association,

by addressing a request for authorisation to the Council of Ministers

within the relevant three months' time-limit and by appealing to the

Supreme Court against the Council of Ministers' refusal, made a normal

use of the remedies which in the particular context must be regarded

as adequate and sufficient.  It also follows that by introducing its

application to the Commission less than six months after the Supreme

Court's decision of 13 March 1995 the association has complied with the

six months' rule under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

b)    The Government also submit that the applicant association has not

exhausted the remedies available to it in respect of the particular

acts of suppression of its activities.  Thus, as regards the alleged

defamatory media campaign it is open to the association to bring

actions against journalists.

      The applicant association replies inter alia that Decision No.

255 of the Council of Ministers deprived it of legal status to bring

actions or employ other remedies.

      The Commission notes that the applicant association's

registration at the Sofia City Court has apparently not been formally

cancelled.  However, it appears that this is due to an omission on the

part of the authorities, the transitional provision of the Persons and

Family Act clearly stating that the registration of a religious

association which has been refused authorisation, shall be cancelled.

Also, the opinion that the annulment of the registration takes effect

ex lege, by virtue of the Council of Ministers' refusal of

authorisation, is shared by the Bulgarian authorities involved.  This

view has been expressed by the Government in their submissions to the

Commission, as well as by all local and central organs, when

suppressing the applicant association's activities.

      Therefore, it cannot be reproached to the applicant association

that it did not embark on an attempt to rely on its still existent

formal registration and bring actions or lodge complaints. Indeed, it

appears that in 1997 the authorities initiated action to rectify their

omission, the formal annulment of the association's registration having

been requested by a prosecutor.

      Furthermore, the termination of the activities of a religious

association was, under the transitional provision of the Persons and

Family Act, an automatic result of the refusal of re-registration.

      The Commission finds that in these circumstances the applicant

association did not need to lodge complaints against every act of the

authorities in order to exhaust all domestic remedies within the

meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

c)    The Government also maintain that the application is manifestly

ill-founded.

      The Government submit that there has been no interference with

rights under Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention because the

suspension of the association's registration and activities has no

bearing on the right of every individual Jehovah's Witness to practise

his religion, this right being guaranteed by the Constitution.  The

Government further state that there has been an interference with the

association's rights under Article 11 (Art. 11), but that it was

justified under the second paragraph of this provision.  Under Article

10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the Government submit that the press in

a democratic society has the right and the duty to inform the public

about the danger which a religious association may represent.  The

Government submit that public officials have not made defamatory

statements, but have only informed about the doctrine of Jehovah's

Witnesses.

      As regards Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention the Government

submit that the refusal of authorisation was based solely on the

conclusion that the applicant association posed a threat to society.

It was not based on the fact that the association represented an

"untraditional" religion.  Thus, 30 religious cults and 17 associations

from various religious traditions have been registered in Bulgaria.

      The Government submit that when the applicant association was

registered in 1991 the court was competent only to examine the

compliance with the formal requirements for registration.  The court

had no power to scrutinise the association's religious practices and

doctrine.  It was precisely for this reason that between 1991 and 1994

about 150 religious groups chose to register as associations under the

Persons and Family Act instead of applying for registration under the

Religious Denominations Act, which provided for an examination, by the

Council of Ministers, of the religious activities of the respective

applicant.  This legislative discrepancy prompted the amendment of the

Persons and Family Act in 1994, which introduced, in Section 133a of

the Persons and Family Act, the requirement of prior authorisation for

the registration of an association with religious activities.  The

authorisation was entrusted to the Council of Ministers, because it was

considered that the examination of the ideas and practices of the

religious associations and their conformity with the law did not fall

within the competence of the courts.

      As regards the examination of the applicant association's

petition for re-registration in 1994, the Government submit that under

Bulgarian law the Council of Ministers has no obligation to give

reasons for its decisions.  Therefore Decision No. 255 was published

without a reasoning.

      As regards the proceedings before the Supreme Court the

Government submit that the Court was not competent to examine the

"correctness" of Decision No. 255.  In view of this limited competence

of the Supreme Court the Council of Ministers did not present evidence

about the unlawful and dangerous religious practices of the applicant

association.  However, it would have done so if the applicant

association had requested it.

      The Government submit that such evidence existed, and that it was

taken into account by the Council of Ministers.  The Government further

summarise this evidence.

      The Government submit, firstly, that the applicant association's

statute did not require a minimum age for membership and that children

have been participating in its religious activities without the consent

of their parents.  Moreover, there have been occasions where teachers

adhering to the association have abused their position to preach in

school among minors.  The Government state that the distribution to

children of forms for the refusal of blood transfusion and of other

religious materials without the consent of the parents is an unlawful

practice which infringes public health and the rights and freedoms of

others.

      The Government then proceed to an analysis of Jehovah's

Witnesses' religious doctrine and state that it contains ideas and

canons which are contrary to the Constitution and endanger public

health, national security, and the rights and freedoms of others.

      The Government maintain that Jehovah's Witnesses preach

disrespect for the democratic institutions and the national symbols and

require their adepts to disobey the law when it is contrary to the

"divine law".  Also, the Government submit that Jehovah's Witnesses

refuse to bear arms and to work in the public service and that they are

seeking the establishment of a theocratic society.  This element of

their doctrine endangers national security.

      The Government also consider that Jehovah's Witnesses are

intolerant and may become violent in respect of other religions, that

they seek social marginalisation and avoid integration in the society.

Furthermore, their doctrine does not have respect for the value of

human life as it requires to refuse blood transfusions even when this

would bring death.

      The Government conclude that the suspension of the applicant

association's registration and activities was a necessary preventive

measure.  In view of Jehovah's Witnesses' dangerous doctrine and

because of their attempts to attract adepts, and especially minors, the

Bulgarian authorities had to act and needed not wait to see the

inevitable grave consequences of Jehovah's Witnesses' activities.  The

Government also maintain that the suppression of the association's

functioning was lawful.  Thus, the relevant law did not require always

a written order for searches and seizures, an oral approval by a

prosecutor in urgent cases being sufficient.

      The applicant association argues that the suspension of its

registration and activities constituted an interference with its rights

under Articles 9, 10 and 11 (Art. 9, 10, 11) of the Convention. The

applicant association objects to the Government's contention that every

individual Jehovah's Witness is free to practise his religion, and

states that Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention protects the right to

manifest one's religion "in community with others" and "in public", not

only individually.  Furthermore, the applicant association submits that

the scale and the direction of the measures against it are such that

they aim directly to suppress and prohibit the Jehovah's Witnesses'

religion and that, therefore, they have no legitimate purpose under the

second paragraphs of Articles 9, 10 and 11 (Art. 9, 10, 11) of the

Convention.

      The applicant association contends that the measures against it

are not necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of these

provisions.  Thus, the association maintains that it does not pose a

threat as alleged by the authorities.  As regards the alleged unlawful

activities of Jehovah's Witnesses with children the applicant

association submits that children cannot become members of the

association but only participate, together with their parents, in the

religious activities of the community.  As regards a "pioneer card"

issued to a Ms. V., the applicant association explains that the card

was issued when Ms. V. was 16 years old and could assume some civil

obligations herself.   Also, Ms. V.'s card prohibiting blood

transfusion aims at "informing the medical professionals [of the

parents' religious stand], and not at imposing on them a certain

medical practice."

      In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant

association submits that while this is part of the religious doctrine

of Jehovah's Witnesses, its acceptance depends on the personal choice

of the individual concerned.  There are no religious sanctions for a

Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion.  Therefore,

the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against

blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to "public health", every

individual being free in his or her choice.

      The applicant association also contends that blood transfusion

can be very dangerous, because of contamination.  Furthermore,

referring to publications and research of medical professionals, the

applicant association submits that surgery and other medical treatment

can be effected successfully without resort to blood transfusion.

Moreover, there are several hospitals in Bulgaria which apply surgery

without blood transfusion.  Also, the applicant association submits

that the Court has already dealt with this issue in Hoffmann v. Austria

(Eur. Court HR, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C).

      As regards the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to bear arms the

applicant association state that the Constitution, in Section 59

para. 2, provides for an alternative service for conscientious

objectors, and that therefore refusal to bear arms cannot be unlawful

or contrary to national security under Bulgarian law.  Moreover,

various acts of the Council of Europe and of other international

organisations have recognised the rights of the conscientious

objectors.  It cannot be maintained, therefore, that the position of

the Jehovah's Witnesses as regards military service endangers national

security.

      The applicant association denies the Government's allegation that

Jehovah's Witnesses were seeking a theocratic society.  They are

respectful of public authority, work in public service and respect the

opinion of others.  They do not disturb ceremonies honouring the

national flag or other symbols, but simply refrain from taking an

active part in them.  Moreover, Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide

participate in social activities.

      The applicant association further submits that the Government's

analysis of their doctrine demonstrates the ambition of the State to

play the role of a guarantor of the nation's moral values, which is an

inadmissible taking of sides on ideological issues.  In this context

Decision No. 255 of June 1994 appears to be a judgment over Jehovah's

Witnesses' religious and moral values, a judgment which the Government

consider themselves to be competent to deliver on behalf of the people.

At the same time, according to the applicant association, the

authorities have not attempted at all to strike a balance between the

individual and the public interests.  It is not serious to claim,

according to the applicant association, that a religious group of about

500 to 1000 persons may represent a threat to the State, with its 8

million inhabitants.    Moreover, Bulgaria is the only member of the

Council of Europe refusing registration to Jehovah's Witnesses.

      The applicant association submits, under Article 14 in

conjunction with Article 11 (Art. 14+11) of the Convention, that the

Government have not shown the existence of justified grounds of

distinction between the religious associations which were registered

and those which were not.

      Having examined the applicant association's complaints under

Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 (Art. 9, 10, 11, 14), 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.  This part of 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 ground for

declaring it inadmissible has been established.

4.    The applicant association also complains, under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, that its civil right to legal personality

was decided by the Council of Ministers, the Supreme Court having

refused to discuss the substance of the dispute, and under Article 13

(Art. 13) of the Convention that it did not have an effective remedy

against the breaches of its Convention rights.

      These provisions, insofar as relevant, read as follows:

      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

           "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and

      obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing

      ... by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."

      Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention

           "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

      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."

      The Government dispute the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6)

of the Convention, stating that it concerns only civil rights and

obligations of individuals, the issues concerning freedom of

association being covered by Article 11 (Art. 11).  The Government also

submit that the Council of Ministers' decision was subject to judicial

control before the Supreme Court.  This control is limited to issues

of lawfulness only, which, according to the Government, is a normal

practice in all countries.  The Government refer to decision No. 13 of

22 July 1993 of the Constitutional Court (see above Relevant domestic

law and practice).

      The applicant association maintains its complaints.

      Having examined the applicant association's complaints under

Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 (Art. 6-1, 13) of the Convention, 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 remainder of 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 ground

for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

      For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

      merits of the case.

        M. de SALVIA                        S. TRECHSEL

      Deputy Secretary                       President

      to the Commission                   of the Commission