Published on 11 April 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 5610/21 Mihai-Silviu CHIRILÄ‚ against Romania lodged on 11 January 2021 communicated on 20 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the measures taken by the national authorities regarding the functioning of churches in the context of the health crisis due to COVID-19. In particular, under joint presidential and ministerial decisions, the collective exercise of worship was not authorized from 16 March to 14 May 2020, therefore including the Easter period. On 23 March 2020 the applicant brought an action for annulment, accompanied by a request for interim measures and a request for a stay of execution, before the national courts against the measures in questions. On 9 September 2020 the High Court of Cassation and Justice considered that there was no need to rule on the action brought by the applicant because he no longer had a legitimate interest in pursuing the case as the joint presidential and ministerial decisions in question were no longer valid.

The applicant alleged that the measures taken by the authorities interfered with his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion protected by Article 9 of the Convention because they had concerned the most important religious celebration in the life of a practicing Christian and had prevented him from manifesting his beliefs collectively with other members of his faith as the Orthodox Church required. Moreover, the measures in question had been unlawful because the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion had not been included in the list of rights for which the national authorities had exercised a right of derogation under Article 15 of the Convention and the restriction had been imposed by way of military ordinances and not by ordinary law as required by the national constitutional order. Furthermore, the measures had been unjustified and disproportionate, had failed to pursue a legitimate aim and the national authorities had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons for imposing them.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention ?