NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

2.5.2 Management of religious organisations The applicant in the case of Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine 780 was the organisation registered as a religious association of the Russian Orthodox Church. Since its registration, it belonged to the denomination of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Later on, the association’s Parishioners’ Assembly decided to withdraw from the jurisdiction and canonical guidance of the Moscow Patriarchate and to accept that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate. In view of this decision, it requested the state administration body to register these amendments to its statute. The domestic authorities, including the national courts, rejected, for various reasons, the association’s requests. Relying on Article 9, the association alleged before the Court that, as a result of the refusal, parishioners of the church were restricted in their right to practice their religion and were unable to manage the parish’s property. Having examined submissions by the parties and the relevant circumstances of the case, the Court considered the interference with the association’s rights have been prescribed by law. Nonetheless, even though the relevant law was accessible, it was not, from the Court’s point of view, sufficiently ‘foreseeable’. It further held that the interference complained of essentially pursued a legitimate aim, specifically the protection of public order and safety and the rights of others. However, the interference at issue was not justified because there were not any safeguards against arbitrary decisions by the registering authority. The Court, therefore, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. This case illustrates that compliance with the duty of neutrality of a state may lead to a breach of the religious organisations’ rights. 781 The Court found that the interference with the applicant organisation’s rights under Article 9 was not necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public order or the rights and freedoms of others in the case of Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria . 782 The applicant here was the Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community. At the relevant time, it was one of two rival groups claiming leadership of the Muslim community in Bulgaria. The applicant organisation complained that the Bulgarian authorities intervened in the affairs of the Muslim community by organising the Muslim Conference in support of a rival faction. The Court noted that the authorities’ actions had the effect of compelling the divided community to have a single leadership against the will of one of the two rival leaderships. The leaders elected by the Conference obtained the status of the sole legitimate leadership of the Muslim community and, as a result, the applicant organisation was deprived of the possibility of continuing to autonomously manage the affairs and assets of the part of the Muslim community it represented. The Court reiterated that the state measures favouring a particular leader of a divided religious community constituted an infringement of the freedom of religion. In democratic societies, the authorities do not need to take measures to ensure that religious communities are brought under unified leadership. The role of a state Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya , cited above. 781 CISMAS, I. Religious Actors and International Law . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 125. 782 Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community , cited above, § 99. 780

144