Information Note on the Court’s case-law 64

May 2004

Sâmbata Bihor Greco-Catholic Parish v. Romania (dec.) - 48107/99

Decision 25.5.2004 [Section II]

Article 9

Article 9-1

Freedom of religion

Refusal to allow use of local church for worship: admissible

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Refusal to recognise jurisdiction of courts in respect of a dispute concerning the right to use a religious building: admissible

Article 35

Article 35-1

Six-month period

Complaints formulated “in substance” in the application

The applicant church is a local parish affiliated to the Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church, which was outlawed in 1948 and granted recognition again in 1990; its assets had been confiscated by the State in 1948 and transferred to the Orthodox Church. In 1996, the applicant church brought an action against the Sâmbăta Orthodox Church for the purpose of receiving authorisation to use the local church building, which had belonged to it prior to 1948, for religious services. The applicant church won its case at fi rst instance and on appeal. However, the court of appeal found against it in a judgment of January 1998, declaring its request inadmissible. In accordance with the prevailing case-law of the Supreme Court of Justice, the court of appeal ruled that the cour ts did not have jurisdiction to settle disputes concerning property and usage rights for religious buildings.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1, Article 9 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken separately and together with Article 14, and under Article 13. Th e Court noted that it could examine of its own motion a complaint under an Article which the applicant had not relied on, and that a “complaint” was characterised by the fact that it denounced a situation. It considered that, inter alia in the statement of facts in the application form, the applicant had set out complaints which, in substance, were based on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 13 and 14, taken together with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government's objection that the a pplication was out of time was therefore dismissed.

© 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