Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BULGARIAN ORTHODOX OLD CALENDAR CHURCH AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 9+11 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association);Violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ÉGLISE ORTHODOXE VIEILLE-CALENDARISTE DE BULGARIE ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 40524/08

  GENOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  However, it appears that in spite of that case-law, by 2008 three Presbyterian, eleven Baptist and three Lutheran churches, some of them bearing very similar names, featured in the register kept by the Sofia City Court (see Genov v. Bulgaria, no. 40524/08, § 19 in fine, 23 March 2017).

  It is true that the absence of official registration and legal personality does not prevent the applicant church's ministers from conducting religious services and its adherents from practicing (see Genov v. Bulgaria, no. 40524/08, § 37, 23 March 2017, and Metodiev and Others, cited above, § 36, and contrast Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 105, ECHR 2001-XII).

• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98

  RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  But the fact that the authorities have not actively intervened in the church's activities is not decisive (see Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 67, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  15018/11 and 61199/12, § 184, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Dimovic v. Serbia, no. 24463/11, § 21, 28 June 2016).

 
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 76836/01

  KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  Without official registration, the church could not obtain legal personality and thus exercise in its own name the rights pertaining thereto, such as the rights to own or lease property, keep bank accounts, appoint ministers and other employees, and ensure judicial protection of the religious community and its members and assets, all of which are essential for exercising the right to manifest one's religion (see Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 85, ECHR 2009; Genov, cited above, § 37; and Metodiev and Others, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  The present proceedings are under Article 34 of the Convention, whereas, according to its case-law, the Court may only consider whether a High Contracting Party has failed in its duty under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the final judgment in a case to which it was party in an "infringement procedure" under Article 46 §§ 4 and 5 brought by the Committee of Ministers (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 102, 11 July 2017; and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (infringement proceedings) [GC], no. 15172/13, § 167, 29 May 2019).
• EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99

  METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  It is true that the absence of official registration and legal personality does not prevent the applicant church's ministers from conducting religious services and its adherents from practicing (see Genov v. Bulgaria, no. 40524/08, § 37, 23 March 2017, and Metodiev and Others, cited above, § 36, and contrast Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 105, ECHR 2001-XII).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  Nor does Article 13 require a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the grounds of being contrary to the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-X; and Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others (merits), cited above, § 177).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  According to the Court's case-law, there must be a clear causal link between the breach found by the Court and the damage alleged by the applicants (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 16, Series A no. 285-C; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 119, ECHR 2001-V; and Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 81, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  The present proceedings are under Article 34 of the Convention, whereas, according to its case-law, the Court may only consider whether a High Contracting Party has failed in its duty under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the final judgment in a case to which it was party in an "infringement procedure" under Article 46 §§ 4 and 5 brought by the Committee of Ministers (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 102, 11 July 2017; and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (infringement proceedings) [GC], no. 15172/13, § 167, 29 May 2019).