Published on 19 December 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 64162/16 ValtaiÄ·u Autonomous Evangelical Lutheran Parish against Latvia lodged on 1 November 2016 communicated on 30 November 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant parish’s property rights and the rights to exercise its religious freedom.

The applicant is a religious organisation - a parish - which owned the land and several buildings built on that land (including a church where it held its religious services) until the Soviet occupation of Latvia, when its property was nationalised. Following the restoration of Latvia’s independence, in 1992 a special law was adopted with a view to restoring religious organisations’ property rights over their property that had been nationalised in the Soviet times. The applicant parish took steps with a view to registering its property rights in accordance with that law.

On 1 September 2008 another religious organisation (the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Church) brought proceedings against the applicant parish with a view to establishing property rights over the land and buildings in question (case no. C02045308). By a final decision of 3 May 2016 the Church obtained property rights in that respect.

The applicant parish alleges a breach of Article 9 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant parish’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2?

2. Did the applicant parish have any recognised right in Latvian law that gave rise to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX; and, mutatis mutandis , Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 145-49 , ECHR 2015, and Maharramov v. Azerbaijan , no. 5046/07, §§ 47-55, 30 March 2017) ?

If the applicant parish had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, has there been an interference with its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions? If so, was that interference proportionate and justified for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı v. Turkey , no. 34478/97, §§ 44-60, 9 January 2007; Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı v. Turkey , nos. 37639/03 and 3 others, §§ 40-54, 3 March 2009)?