Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/145912722/Hotarari-CEDO-Discrimnare
Timestamp: 2018-01-24 00:20:56
Document Index: 569335754

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 2330', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 41', '§ 39', '§ 40', '§ 110', '§ 98', 'in fine', '§ 70', '§ 120', '§ 2', '§ 40', '§ 36', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 40', '§ 104', '§ 55', '§ 67', '§ 2', '§ 40', '§ 78', '§ 70', '§ 71', '§ 48', '§ 69', '§ 30', '§ 72', '§ 71', '§ 73', '§ 41', '§ 52', '§ 58', '§ 45', '§ 74', '§ 51', '§ 37', '§ 78', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 118', '§ 107', '§ 103', '§ 62']

Hotarari CEDO Discrimnare | European Convention On Human Rights | Human Rights
Uploaded by Patra venetia
Description: Hotarari C.E.D.O. Discriminare
Hotarari C.E.D.O. Discriminare
CASE OF SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. ROMANIA (Application no. 2330/09)
STRASBOURG 31 January 2012
Referred to the Grand Chamber 09/07/2012
The applicant union was represented by Mr I. a lawyer practising in Craiova. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. 5. Mihai Poalelungi. which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). third-party comments were received from the Archdiocese of Craiova and the non-governmental organisation European Centre for Law and Justice. sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall. Corneliu Bîrsan. the judge elected in respect of Romania. Delivers the following judgment. Romania. It was also decided that the Chamber would examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention). The President of the Chamber accordingly appointed Mihai Poalelungi to sit as an ad hoc judge in his place (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). Egbert Myjer. . 2. Ineta Ziemele. Gruia. withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court). and Santiago Quesada. on 30 December 2008. 2330/09) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a trade union. judges. President. Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2011. The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section).-H.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. In addition. which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. Kristina Pardalos. Mr R. Section Registrar. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Nona Tsotsoria. 4. The case originated in an application (no. Radu. Păstorul cel Bun (“The Good Shepherd” – “the applicant union”). Ján Šikuta. On 31 March 2010 the President of the Third Section decided to communicate the application to the Government. The parties replied in writing to each other’s observations. The applicant union alleged that the refusal of its application for registration had infringed the right of its members to form trade unions within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. 3. of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
489/2006 on religious freedom and the legal status of religious denominations. (i) ensure that it is involved and represented at all levels and on all decision-making bodies. In order to achieve the above aim. rest. demonstrations and strikes as means of defending its members’ interests and protecting their dignity and fundamental rights. (k) take legal action against any individuals or other entities that disregard employment legislation. competition and freedom of expression among its members. On 4 April 2008 thirty-five clergymen and lay staff of the Romanian Orthodox Church. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. (d) promote initiative. the provisions of the collective agreement drawn up within the Metropolis or employment contracts. trade-union law. the majority of them Orthodox priests in parishes of the Metropolis of Oltenia (a region of south-western Romania). if it has proved impossible to resolve the disputes in question by means of negotiation. social protection. both during and after their terms of office. (e) ensure the implementation and strict observance of the statutory provisions concerning protection of employment and the rights deriving therefrom. safety at work. ROMANIA JUDGMENT THE FACTS I.2 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. dignity. (c) ensure compliance with the statutory provisions concerning the duration of leave and days of rest. (b) ensure that each of its members is provided with work corresponding to his professional training and skills. (j) use petitions. (f) apply fully the provisions of Law no. held a general meeting at which they decided to form the Păstorul cel Bun trade union. in accordance with the statutory provisions in force. (h) afford protection to its President and representatives. pension rights and other rights laid down in the legislation in force. economic. unemployment benefits. The relevant parts of the union’s constitution read as follows: “The aim of the union of clergy and lay persons working in parishes or other ecclesiastical bodies within the administrative and territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolis of Oltenia shall be accepted voluntarily and concerns the representation and protection of the professional. the union shall seek to: (a) ensure respect for the fundamental rights of its members to work. the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Holy Canons of the Romanian Orthodox Church. social and cultural rights and interests of clergy and lay members of the union in their dealings with the Church hierarchy and the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs. (l) ensure the observance and implementation of statutory provisions relating to remuneration and guarantees of decent living conditions. social insurance. . (g) negotiate collective and individual labour agreements with the Archdiocese and the Metropolis expressly setting out all the rights and duties of the clergy and laity.
. (n) set up its own mutual-aid funds. The court based its decision on the provisions of section 2 of Law no. (r) raise equity to support its members. (ş) make proposals for elections to local Church bodies and put forward a priest from among its members to take part in the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church. In accordance with the Trade Unions Act (Law no. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 3 (m) secure to the clergy and laity the benefit of all the rights enjoyed by other sectors of society. The union’s representative pursued his application. Article 39 of the Labour Code. pointing out that the statutory requirements for establishing a trade union. were fulfilled and that the Act in question did not bar the professional groups concerned in this case from forming a union. 54/2003. 9. He acknowledged that the members of the union were employed by the Archdiocese on individual contracts. approved by Government Ordinance no. the union’s elected president applied to the Craiova Court of First Instance for the union to be granted legal personality and entered in the register of trade unions. of any decisions relating to appointments. The representative of the Archdiocese opposed the application. (p) establish and operate cultural. and (ţ) ask the Archdiocesan Council to notify it. 11.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. transfers and allocation of budgetary resources. 10. (o) produce and issue publications providing information to its members and defending their interests. educational and research organisations in the trade-union sphere. as the priests and lay persons concerned were all employed by the Church and as such were entitled to form an association to defend their rights. Article 40 of the Constitution.” 7. The public prosecutor’s office supported the application. as set out in the Trade Unions Act. in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and in the interests of its members. thereby granting it legal personality. Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a judgment of 22 May 2008 the court allowed the union’s application and ordered its entry in the register of trade unions. prohibited the establishment of any form of association without the archbishop’s prior consent. 54/2003). but argued that the internal regulations of the Orthodox Church. on a quarterly or annual basis. expressing the view that the establishment of the union was lawful and that the Church’s internal regulations could not prohibit it. (t) ask the Archdiocese to submit a report on its revenues and expenditure to the Assembly of Priests. 8. 53/2008. 12. as well as social and socio-economic institutions. (s) organise and fund religious activities.
The Archdiocese appealed against the court’s judgment. It argued that Article 29 of the Constitution guaranteed religious freedom and the autonomy of religious communities and that this principle could not be overridden by freedom of association. In a final judgment of 11 July 2008 the Dolj County Court allowed the appeal. Reviewing the union’s constitution. 17. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 13. on the contrary. submitting that the provisions of domestic and international law on which it had been based were not applicable to the present case. refused the application for legal personality and for entry in the register of trade unions. It further submitted that by acknowledging the trade union’s existence. protection of health and safety at work. It noted that the Religious Freedom Act (Law no. social and charitable purpose. It further noted that there was no reference to the concept of a trade union in the Statute of the Orthodox Church. educational. public order. on the merits. vocational training. which provided that the establishment. the court held that the fact that priests had a duty of subordination and obedience vis-à-vis their employer under the Church’s Statute could not justify restricting a right guaranteed by labour legislation since such a duty did not constitute a measure that was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security. morals and fundamental rights and freedoms. thus undermining its autonomy. the court had interfered with the traditional organisation of the Church. Noting further that it was not disputed that the union’s members were employed on contracts. or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. operation and dissolution of religious associations and foundations were subject to the blessing of the Church’s . it held that as a result. but that. the prevention of disorder or crime. could not be made subject to their employer’s prior consent.4 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. 489/2006 guaranteed the autonomy of religious communities and their right to make their own organisational arrangements in accordance with their internal regulations. cultural. public health. 15. 18. 14. which was guaranteed by labour law. public safety. medical cover and the right to elect representatives and stand for election to decision-making bodies. 16. their right to organise. it might encourage employer-employee dialogue regarding the negotiation of employment contracts. the protection of health or morals. observance of working and non-working hours and the rules on remuneration. The County Court observed that the Constitution and Law no. Regarding the Church’s internal regulations. quashed the first-instance judgment and. the court found that its establishment was not necessarily a manifestation of a dissident faction within the Romanian Orthodox Church with a disregard for hierarchy and traditions. in accordance with the special characteristics of the Church and its spiritual. 489/2006) allowed religious organisations to operate independently as long as there was no threat to national security.
The right to collective labour bargaining and the binding force of collective agreements shall be guaranteed. It held that the prohibition on setting up any form of association within the Church without the consent of the hierarchy was justified by the need to protect the Orthodox Christian tradition and its founding tenets. including those of a personal nature. persons performing management functions were not allowed to form trade unions and. concluded that they were covered by this ban. vocational training.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. and that if a union were to be established. trade unions. Domestic law 21. The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 40 “Citizens may freely associate to form political parties. women shall receive equal pay to men. 19. it must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. it noted that under Law no.” Article 29 “Freedom of thought and opinion and freedom of religion shall not be restricted in any form. the establishment of a national gross minimum wage. without their prior written approval. bearing in mind that under the Church’s Statute. The normal average working day is a maximum of eight hours. Lastly. No one shall be compelled to embrace an opinion or religion contrary to his or her own beliefs. . These concern employees ’ health and safety. 54/2003. Freedom of conscience is guaranteed. Employees are entitled to social protection measures. employers’ organisations and other forms of association. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 5 Synod and that priests had a duty of obedience towards their superiors and could not undertake civil transactions. and other specific situations as provided for by law. the Church hierarchy would be obliged to work together with a new body operating outside that tradition and the rules of canon law governing decision-making. II. work performed in particular or special conditions. working conditions for women and young people. RELEVANT LAW AND PRACTICE A.” Article 41 “The right to work shall not be restricted. For equal work. priests assumed leadership of their parishes. paid annual leave. weekly rest. Everyone is free to choose his or her profession. 20. trade or occupation and workplace.
conscience and religion of any person within the territory of Romania. ROMANIA JUDGMENT Religious denominations shall be free and religious communities shall be organised in accordance with their own regulations. associations and groups shall be required to observe the Constitution and the law and not to threaten public safety. the police and members of the special forces may not set up trade unions. including public officials. subject to the conditions laid down by law. the military. means. public order. they shall be organised and shall operate independently in accordance with their own statutes or canons. not to join or to leave a trade union. health. morals and fundamental rights and freedoms. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows: Section 1 “The Romanian State shall respect and guarantee the right to freedom of thought. The establishment of a trade union shall require a minimum of fifteen employees in the same occupation or branch of activity.” 23. shall have the right to form or to join trade unions. freedom to practise religious beliefs is guaranteed.” 22. No one shall be compelled to join. hospitals. The relevant provisions of the Trade Unions Act (Law no.” Section 3 “Persons performing management functions or functions involving the exercise of public authority. All forms. 54/2003) are worded as follows: Section 2 “Anyone working on the basis of a contract of employment. ” Section 5 “Members of religious communities shall be free to choose the form of association in which they wish to practise their faith – religious community. Under the Religious Freedom Act (Law no. 489/2006).” Section 8 “Recognised religious communities shall have the status of charitable corporations.6 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. including the provision of facilities offering religious assistance in the army. in accordance with the Constitution and international treaties to which Romania is a party. the judiciary. acts and actions of religious enmity shall be prohibited in relations between religious denominations. prisons. Religious communities. Religious communities shall enjoy autonomy in relation to the State and shall receive State support. asylums and orphanages.” . association or group – in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Act. Under the provisions of the Constitution and this Act.
330/2009) contains provisions on the remuneration of the clergy and lay staff. Religious communities may impose disciplinary sanctions on their employees. the Government shall grant the status of a State-recognised religious community to religious associations which. on request. through their activities and number of members. the State pays clergy employed by recognised religious communities a monthly stipend equivalent to between 65% and 80% of the salary of a secondaryschool teacher. for breaches of the community’s doctrine or moral principles. adopted by the Church’s Synod in November 2007 and approved by Government Ordinance no. in accordance with their own statutes.” 24.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. public order.” Section 17 “On a proposal by the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs.” Section 26 “Matters of internal discipline shall be exclusively subject to the provisions of internal regulations and canon law. Law no. codes of canon law and regulations.” Section 24 “Employees of religious communities who are insured within the State insurance scheme shall be subject to the legislation on the State social-insurance system. This allowance and all social contributions payable by employers in respect of these employees are covered by local government budgets. 25. are of public interest and of proven sustainability and stability.” Section 23 “Religious communities shall select. according to the number of worshippers and the actual needs of the communities. As regards lay staff. It provides that the State is to contribute to the remuneration of clergy members and lay persons employed by recognised religious communities. The relevant provisions read as follows: . 26. morals and fundamental rights and freedoms. Thus. codes of canon law and regulations. The Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church. replaced the previous Statute. health. The State-Funded Remuneration Act (Law no. 330/2009 provides that they are to receive a monthly allowance equivalent to the national guaranteed minimum wage. appoint. which dated from 1949. The State also covers all social contributions payable by employers in respect of members of the clergy. 53 of 16 January 2008. employ and dismiss staff in accordance with their own statutes. to the remuneration of clergy and lay staff of recognised religious communities. The State shall recognise statutes and canons to the extent that their content does not threaten public safety. Clergymen holding senior positions receive a higher stipend. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 7 Section 10 “The State shall contribute.
financial or commercial nature that are contrary to Orthodox Christian morals and the interests of the Church.. organisation and dissolution of national ecclesiastical associations and foundations .” Article 43 “The parish is the community of believers. Without the bishop’s blessing. legal. He shall ensure the observance of discipline by members of the clergy and lay staff in his diocese..” Article 88 “The bishop .. they shall receive a decision from the bishop setting out their rights and duties. organisation and dissolution of Orthodox associations and foundations that operate in dioceses and have their own governing bodies.. be members of or take part in associations. members of the clergy and monks may not take part in court proceedings save with the prior written permission of the bishop. By virtue of the oath of obedience taken at the time of their ordination. The status of priest. grouped into metropolises. It shall grant or refuse its blessing for the establishment.” Article 12 “The Holy Synod shall take decisions on the establishment. deacons or monks may form..” Article 52 “Priests and other church staff have the rights and are bound by the obligations set forth in the Holy Canons.” .. deacon or monk is incompatible with the pursuit of any other personal activities of an economic.” Article 123 “Members of the clergy shall serve the diocese in accordance with the duties they have freely assumed and with the vows and the solemn public undertaking they have read out and signed prior to their ordination.” Article 50 “Without the bishop’s prior written consent. Before commencing their pastoral functions.8 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. no priests. the priest may not represent the parish in court proceedings or in dealings with the authorities or third parties. this Statute. foundations or other organisations of any kind. administrative and economic authority of the diocese or archdiocese. It is led by a priest appointed by the bishop. shall order the appointment. transfer or dismissal of clergy and lay staff in the various parishes . clergy and laity. church regulations and the decisions of the archdiocese. ROMANIA JUDGMENT Article 6 “The Patriarchate is made up of dioceses and archdioceses. within a specified geographical territory and subject to the canonical. whether directly or through ecclesiastical bodies.
In a judgment of 4 February 2010 the High Court of Justice and Cassation. That position was confirmed in two judgments delivered by the Cluj and Iaşi Courts of Appeal on 3 February 1998 and 3 June 2008 respectively. upheld the refusal. In a final judgment of 4 October 1990 the Medgidia Court of First Instance ordered the entry of Solidaritatea.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. on an appeal by an Orthodox priest against the refusal of the Labour Inspectorate to review the application of labour law by the diocese (his employer). It further appears from the reasoning of the Iaşi Court of Appeal’s above-mentioned judgment of 3 June 2008 that the Sfântul Mare Mucenic Gheorghe union of Orthodox clergy was entered in the register of trade unions and granted legal personality as a result of a final judgment delivered on 5 June 2007 by the Hârlau Court of First Instance. the provisions of internal regulations alone were applicable. observing that the decision on his enforced retirement had been taken before the union had been established. the statutory provisions on social insurance. In its judgment of 3 June 2008 the Iaşi Court of Appeal was required to determine a case in which the appellant. holding that in matters of internal discipline. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 9 Article 156 “By virtue of the autonomy of religious communities under the law. arguing that the measure was motivated by his membership of the Sfântul Mare Mucenic Gheorghe union of Orthodox clergy. an Orthodox priest. .” B. in the register of trade unions and granted it legal personality. Domestic practice concerning the establishment of trade unions within the clergy 30. seeing that employees of the Orthodox Church were covered by the general social-security scheme and. 2. a union of Orthodox clergy of the Archdiocese of Tomis (Constanţa). Case-law of the domestic courts 27. challenged his enforced retirement on grounds of age. the ecclesiastical courts shall resolve matters of internal discipline. as a result. 29. 28. In a judgment of 19 September 2005 the High Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the dismissal or enforced retirement of Orthodox priests. Their decisions are not subject to appeal in the civil courts. Domestic practice 1. 31. It rejected the priest’s argument.
annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation reads as follows. concerning the right to organise. Article 12 § 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reads as follows: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels. (4) The right of all persons to equality before the law and protection against discrimination constitutes a universal right recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Romania ratified the revised European Social Charter on 7 May 1999. trade union and civic matters.” 33.. The principle governing the application to the members of the armed forces of these guarantees and the extent to which they shall apply to persons in this category shall equally be determined by national laws or regulations. is worded as follows: “With a view to ensuring or promoting the freedom of workers and employers to form local. in particular in political.” 34. which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests. national or international organisations for the protection of their economic and social interests and to join those organisations. Convention No. the Contracting Parties undertake that national law shall not be such as to impair. has explicitly recognised that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States and that it equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations. Article 5 of the Charter. this freedom. The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Article shall apply to the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations. United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic. the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.. to which all Member States are signatories.” . Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine.10 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. nor shall it be so applied as to impair. This Directive does not prejudice freedom of association. . (24) The European Union in its Declaration No. International law 32.. ROMANIA JUDGMENT C.. 111 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) prohibits discrimination in the field of employment and occupation. in so far as relevant: Whereas: “.. Social and Cultural Rights and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 11 on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations. With this in view.. (5) It is important to respect such fundamental rights and freedoms. including the right to establish unions with others and to join unions to defend one ’s interests. legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity. .
. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces. . The Government contested that argument. acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws. or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which. in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief. such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement.. provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate. by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out.” 36.. which provides: “1. to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 35. 2. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 11 Article 4 Occupational requirements “1. Member States may maintain national legislation in force . legitimate and justified occupational requirement. by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out. 2. of the police or of the administration of the State. a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where... Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on [religion or belief] shall not constitute discrimination where. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others. this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations. The applicant union submitted that the Dolj County Court had infringed its right to organise as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. the ethos of which is based on religion or belief. a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine.. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety. for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. having regard to the organisation ’s ethos.” THE LAW I. . Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with. for the prevention of disorder or crime.
The applicant union thus maintained that both the Government’s submissions and the County Court’s findings in refusing its application for registration stemmed from confusion between the religious freedom of believers and the Church and the trade-union rights of Church employees. 39. The Court observes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. In view of these considerations. who were Church employees.12 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. 40. It emphasised that it did not challenge the Church’s tenets. It must therefore be declared admissible. was to protect the nonreligious. Merits 1. B. the applicant union argued that the refusal to register it did not accord with national practice. . as reflected in its constitution. the applicant union submitted that the provision of the Statute of the Church requiring the employer’s blessing for a union to be set up was unlawful since it infringed the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention. 41. Lastly. since similar trade unions had been allowed to form both before and after the change of political regime in 1989. The applicant union submitted that the sole purpose of its establishment. 42. Contending that the two spheres were distinct. ROMANIA JUDGMENT A. in their economic and administrative dealings with their employer and the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs. In any event. It also rejected the contention that priests performed management functions in their parishes and were accordingly barred from joining trade unions by Law no. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. it asserted that religious freedom could not justify a restriction of fundamental social rights. hierarchy or operating methods and that it did not represent or seek to represent or replace either the Church or its followers or leadership. but had been set up outside the structure of the Church purely in order to represent its own members. economic interests of the clergy and lay staff of the Church. Admissibility 37. it pointed out that the union also included lay employees of the Church. It contended that the clergy and laity were not among the groups to which the exceptions in the second paragraph of Article 11 applied and concluded that the refusal to register their trade union had caused them to suffer unjustified discrimination in relation to other categories of workers. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant union 38. 54/2003.
48907/99. the Court had held that the internal autonomy of the Church and its decision-making independence should prevail (they cited Dudová and Duda v. pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. their freedom of religion encompassed the possibility of relinquishing their duties or even leaving the Church. no. As to whether the measure was necessary in a democratic society. 48. As to whether a legitimate aim had been pursued. the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of acknowledging the freedom and autonomy of religious communities. 23 September 2008). for example. in view of the importance of the autonomy of religious communities. the Government stated that the refusal to register the union had been justified by the provisions of the Trade Unions Act (Law no. Finland. 30 January 2001. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 13 (b) The Government 43. the Government submitted that State intervention in regulating relations between priests and the Church would have infringed the overriding principle of the autonomy of religious communities. the Czech Republic (dec. The Government accepted that the refusal to register the applicant union had constituted interference with its right to freedom of association as protected by Article 11 of the Convention. 44. 53 of 16 January 2008. They also explained that priests performed management functions in their parishes and received a stipend on that account as part of their salary. as approved by Government Ordinance no. 47. 45. As to whether the interference had been lawful. in Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church . 49.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. the Government pointed out that the autonomy of religious communities was essential for pluralism in a democratic society. This had not been the case. Lastly. Observing that.). 40224/98. the State was required to refrain from interfering in the organisation of the Church. 46. the Government observed that the impugned measure was justified by the need to protect the Romanian Orthodox Church. no. They further observed that. but contended that such interference had been justified as it was prescribed by law. Accordingly. and Ahtinen v. on entering the Church. members of the clergy took an oath by which they freely assumed their religious vocation. and observed in that connection that the Statute of the Orthodox Church provided for different forms of association aimed at assisting priests in airing their grievances. the Government argued that if they subsequently took the view that the structures provided for in the Church’s Statute no longer accorded with their conscience. They submitted that all forms of association existing within the Church had to comply with the Church’s own rules. In this connection they observed that in two cases relating to access to a court for priests wishing to complain about the termination of an employment contract and a transfer respectively. 54/2003) and the Statute of the Orthodox Church.
The ECLJ submitted that in accordance with the principle of the autonomy of religious communities. among them France. The intervener further stated that court decisions in various European countries. 56. By joining a church. It pointed out that the obligation to act in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of the Church had been recognised both in Council Directive 78/2000/EC of 27 November 2000 and in the Court’s case-law. Accordingly. including the possibility of forming a trade union or any other association without prior approval from the hierarchy. The parties concerned were not bound by a contract governed by labour law and. the Church could legitimately prohibit its clergy from forming a trade union if it considered such a body to be harmful to the community. As regards subordination to the Church hierarchy. 52. the Government concluded that a fair balance between the applicant union’s individual interest (in securing recognition of its right to freedom of association) and the State’s obligation (to respect the autonomy of religious communities) had not been upset. 55. The third-party intervener submitted that the right guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention was not absolute and that the protection of religious freedom could justify restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association where the latter called into question the principle of the autonomy of religious communities. The State should therefore respect this vow of obedience and recognise the Church’s legitimate interest . It asserted that within the Romanian Orthodox Church. priests performed their duties by virtue of a freely undertaken prior agreement in the form of an oath taken by each member of the clergy. accordingly. 22 January 2009). it contended that the proportionality of any interference with the right to organise had to be assessed with due regard to this ethos.14 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. In the light of these considerations. The third parties’ observations (a) The Archdiocese of Craiova 51. 412/03 and 35677/04. believers and the clergy freely accepted a duty of obedience. ROMANIA JUDGMENT (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. (b) European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) 54. Church employees could not rely on employment legislation to demand the establishment of a trade union to defend rights falling specifically under labour law. the intervener maintained that this simply entailed free and devoted submission to the faith. had acknowledged that relationships resulting from the specific mission of the Church were different from those deriving from labour law. 50. which entailed waiving certain fundamental rights and freedoms. 2. 53. Bulgaria (nos.
in order to protect their interests. no. as a result of a refusal to register a trade union. ECHR 2008). National Union of Journalists and Others v. ECHR 2003-VIII). Belgium. 58. Turkey [GC]. its responsibility should be engaged under Article 11 of the Convention (see Demir and Baykara v. The Court notes that the Dolj County Court based its refusal to register the applicant union on an ecclesiastical rule. 30668/96. it entails a positive obligation to secure the effective enjoyment of these rights (see Wilson. nos. the United Kingdom. prohibiting the clergy from engaging in any form of association without the consent of the Church hierarchy. ECHR 2002-V). § 41. 34503/97. for the trade union to be heard (see National Union of Belgian Police v. no. the applicable principles are similar (see Hatton and Others v. §§ 39-40. 3. 19. §§ 40-41. A trade union must thus be free to strive for the protection of its members’ interests. which is a particular aspect of freedom of association. In addition. 27 October 1975. The Court’s assessment (a) General principles concerning the content of the right to organise 57. a State failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure these rights to the applicants under domestic law.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. If. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 15 in not allowing its clergy to form a union that would undermine its structure and impair the essence of its beliefs. § 110. The Court reiterates that the essential object of Article 11 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the exercise of the rights it protects. 30671/96 and 30678/96. 20). Sweden. As regards trade-union freedom. Series A no. Whether the case is analysed in terms of a positive duty on the State to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants’ rights under the Article in question or in terms of an interference by a public authority to be justified in accordance with paragraph 2. and the individual members have a right. 6 February 1976. It found that banning the clergy and laity from forming trade unions was in accordance with the provisions of domestic law governing the right to organise and was justified by the need to protect the Orthodox Christian tradition and to ensure that the Church hierarchy was not obliged to work together with a . 59. and Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. the United Kingdom [GC]. the conduct and development of which the Contracting States must both permit and make possible. set forth in the Church’s Statute. § 98. Series A no. 36022/97. (b) Application of the above principles in the present case 60. the Court reiterates that Article 11 of the Convention safeguards freedom to protect the occupational interests of trade union members by trade union action.
65. and a fortiori lay employees of the Church. Such restrictions are to be construed strictly and can be justified only by convincing and compelling reasons. The Court reiterates that the mere fact that the legislation prohibits certain categories of employees from forming trade unions is not sufficient to warrant such a radical restriction (see. ECHR 2006-II. 66. The Court observes in this connection that Article 11 allows the State to impose restrictions on the right to organise solely in the case of the three groups of persons referred to in paragraph 2 in fine. In determining whether there is a “necessity”. (i) Whether the measure was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim 67. 489/2006). Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV). which goes hand in hand with rigorous European supervision embracing both the law and the decisions applying it (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. it must first consider from the standpoint of Article 11. Schüth v. The Court notes that the refusal to register the applicant union was based on domestic law. mutatis mutandis. § 70. 10 July 1998. 62. Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. and on condition that such restrictions are lawful. § 120). whether clergy and lay persons employed by the Church may enjoy tradeunion rights to the same extent as other employees. They receive salaries that are mainly funded from the State budget and they are covered by the general social-insurance scheme. ECHR 2010). ROMANIA JUDGMENT new body operating outside the rules of canon law concerning decisionmaking. and more specifically the Trade Unions Act (Law no. no. and hence a “pressing social need”. mutatis mutandis. above). 64. It concludes that members of the clergy. The national authorities may at most impose “lawful restrictions” on them in accordance with Article 11 § 2. namely members of the armed forces. The Court further observes that the legal status of Church employees has not been challenged in the domestic courts and that the civil courts have relied on this status when examining the lawfulness of the dismissal or enforced retirement of Church employees in certain circumstances (see paragraphs 8 and 27 et seq. In the present case the Court notes that priests and lay staff carry out their duties within the Romanian Orthodox Church under individual employment contracts. § 40. cannot be excluded from the scope of Article 11 of the Convention. no. 61. 28602/95. States have only a limited margin of appreciation. 54/2003) and the Religious Freedom Act (Law no. taking into account the specific situation of the Romanian Orthodox Church. cited above. as . § 36. Germany. the police or the State administration. for the purposes of Article 11 § 2. Greece. and Demir and Baykara. Accordingly. 63. 1620/03. The Court considers that a relationship based on an employment contract cannot be “clericalised” to the point of being exempted from all rules of civil law (see. Turkey.16 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v.
Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. cited above). Ahmed and Others v.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. 70. firstly. the fact that priests were barred by law from taking part in trade unions because they performed management functions in their parishes. It further reiterates that in determining whether a restriction of the right to organise meets a “pressing social need”. 2 September 1998. . the United Kingdom. 68. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 17 interpreted by the Dolj County Court in the light of the Statute of the Orthodox Church. in so far as the refusal sought to prevent a disparity between the law and practice concerning the establishment of trade unions for Church employees. The Court considers that the interference in issue may be regarded as “prescribed by law” and as pursuing a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. 56759/08.). and mutatis mutandis. the Court can accept that the measure in question was aimed at preserving public order. 41343/98 and 41344/98. (ii) Whether the measure was necessary in a democratic society 69. the Court’s task is not to take the place of the competent domestic courts but to examine the measure in issue from the standpoint of Article 11 and in the light of the case as a whole in order to determine whether the reasons given to justify it were “relevant and sufficient” and whether it was “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”. 3 May 2011). moreover. Turkey [GC]. It thus remains to be determined whether it was “necessary in a democratic society”. its founding tenets and the rules of canon law concerning decisionmaking and. § 40. § 104. mutatis mutandis. no. Reports 1998-VI. When carrying out its scrutiny. § 55. that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see. Greece. secondly. It further observes that the reasons given by the court for refusing the application were. nos. it must ascertain whether there is plausible evidence that the establishment or activities of the trade union in question represent a sufficiently imminent threat to the State or to a democratic society (see Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar. 71. Negrepontis-Giannisis v. and Goodwin v. 41342/98. ECHR 2003-II). 41340/98. 27 March 1996. Reports 1996-II). the United Kingdom. In the present case the Court notes that the civil courts had jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the application for the applicant union to be granted legal personality (contrast Dudová and Duda (dec. § 67. the need to protect the Orthodox Christian tradition. mutatis mutandis. which encompasses the freedom and autonomy of religious communities (see. The Court reiterates that the adjective “necessary” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention implies the existence of a “pressing social need”. It must then satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11 and. Furthermore. § 40. cited above.
The Court observes that the reasons given by the County Court to justify the interference were of a purely religious nature. 30985/96. (β) Whether the interference was based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and was proportionate 77. . no. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 72. 74. or the positions adopted by its members were incompatible with a “democratic society”. § 78. Nor does it appear from the material submitted by the parties that the union’s leaders or its members have made any disrespectful comments about the Orthodox faith or the Church. The Court observes that the applicant union’s constitution did not contain any passages that were critical of the faith or of the Church. Admittedly. In the present case the Court observes that the applicant union’s demands related exclusively to defending the economic. ECHR 2000-XI). including the Statute and canons of the Church. The Court therefore considers that the criteria defining a “pressing social need” were not met in the instant case. Negreponti-Giannisis. it specified that the union intended to observe and apply in full the provisions of civil law and ecclesiastical rules. since the County Court did not establish that the applicant union’s programme. 76. 75. which it considers of secondary importance in reaching its decision in the present case (see. Unlike the firstinstance court. the judges who considered the appeal by the Archdiocese referred solely to the Church’s Statute and the need to preserve the rules of canon law concerning decision-making in order to ensure that the Church leadership was not confronted with a new body alien to tradition. (α) Whether there was a “pressing social need” 73. On the contrary. In any event. The right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Convention excludes any discretion on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate (see Hasan and Chaush v. as set out in its constitution. Regarding the second point. social and cultural rights and interests of salaried employees of the Church. Recognition of the union would therefore not have undermined either the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the means used to express them. § 70). it finds it unnecessary to determine this factual question. the Court observes that the parties disagreed as to whether priests performed management functions.18 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. the autonomy of religious communities referred to by the Government is essential for pluralism in a democratic society and is at the very core of the protection afforded to them by Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. let alone that they represented a threat to democracy. mutatis mutandis. It will therefore assess the existence of a “pressing social need” and the relevance of the reasons given to justify the interference complained of in relation to the first consideration referred to by the County Court. Bulgaria [GC].
303-A. on the basis of the employer’s autonomy. Series A no. in particular the fifth recital of Council Directive 78/2000/EC. James and Webster v. employees bound by such a duty of loyalty may accept a certain restriction of some of their rights (see Ahtinen. In any event. 425/03. such questions were of particular importance in the present case and. 81. Obst v. cited above. 83. do not allow infringements of freedom of association. § 71). after the various employees belonging to the union had taken up their duties within the Orthodox Church. mutatis mutandis. refrain from carrying out a proper balancing exercise between the interests at stake in accordance with the principle of proportionality (see Schüth. 13 August 1981. . 82. should have been explicitly addressed and taken into consideration in weighing up the interests at stake (see. The County Court did not examine the repercussions of the employment contract on the employer-employee relationship. Schüth. §§ 48 and 51. cited above. 9 December 1994. It also acknowledges that when signing their employment contract.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. § 69). ROMANIA JUDGMENT 19 78. cited above. however. § 30. However. Ruiz Torija v. It further observes that the County Court’s refusal to register the trade union was based not on the clauses of the employment contracts but on the provisions of the Church’s Statute. on that account. cited above. and Negrepontis-Giannisis. Spain. the United Kingdom. including the right to establish unions with others and to join unions to defend one’s interests (see paragraph 34 above). 44). an employer whose ethos is based on religion may impose special duties of loyalty on its employees. In addition. Series A no. the Court considers that such a limitation cannot be accepted as valid since it would strike at the very substance of the freedom guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention (see. mutatis mutandis. § 72). cited above. the distinction between members of the clergy and lay employees of the Church or the compatibility of the ecclesiastical rules prohibiting union membership with the domestic and international regulations enshrining the right of employees to belong to a trade union. no. mutatis mutandis. 79. cited above. the Court notes that the relevant international regulations. and Schüth. which entered into force in 2008. § 71). the Court notes that in the present case neither the Government nor the Archdiocese argued in the domestic proceedings or before the Court that the contracts signed by Church employees contained a clause of this nature (see. 23 September 2010. Germany. The Court accepts that under the Convention. As regards the contention that signing the employment contract gave rise to an implicit limitation of the right to organise. 80. In the Court’s opinion. it reiterates that a civil court reviewing a penalty imposed following a breach of such duties cannot. § 73. Young. § 41. § 52. Schüth.
88. Romania. Schüth. However. 3 February 2011. mutatis mutandis. § 58. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 84. II. ECHR 2005-I). The applicant union claimed 20. Siebenhaar v. the Court shall. without specifying its nature. § 45. Having regard to those circumstances. Observing that domestic law allows a case to be reheard if the Court has found a violation of an applicant’s rights.20 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Accordingly. the Court considers that the grounds relied on by the County Court do not appear sufficient to justify the refusal of the applicant union’s application for registration (see. Damage 90. § 74. The Government objected to the claim. 46626/99. mutatis mutandis. (iii) Conclusion 87. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto. cited above. and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made. contending that it was excessive and unrelated to the subject matter of the case. Although such recognition predated the entry into force of the Statute of the Orthodox Church. 86. § 51). afford just satisfaction to the injured party. cited above. no 18136/02.000 euros (EUR) by way of “compensation”. no. the Court considers that a measure as drastic as the refusal to register the applicant union was disproportionate to the aim pursued and consequently unnecessary in a democratic society. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 89. There has therefore been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 92. It stated that this amount represented the subscription fees it had been unable to receive from its members because of the refusal to register it. this cannot by itself justify the need for the interference. 85. in the absence of a “pressing social need” and sufficient reasons. The Court is mindful of the particular background to the present case. 91. the Court considers that the . especially in view of the position occupied by the Orthodox faith in the history and tradition of the respondent State. especially as the applicant union did not seek to challenge that position in any way and the right of Orthodox Church employees to join a trade union has already been recognised on at least two occasions by the domestic courts (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above and. Germany.” A. the fact remains that the establishment of two unions within the Orthodox clergy had been permitted and not deemed unlawful or incompatible with democracy. if necessary. and Obst.
The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank. That apart. it cannot speculate on the total sum the applicant union could have received if its application for registration had been allowed. for example. and Presidential Party of Mordovia v.000 to cover all heads of damage. 93. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 21 most appropriate form of redress would. FOR THESE REASONS. The Government objected to this claim. B. Declares the application admissible unanimously. submitting that the applicant union had not provided any documents substantiating the amount claimed. in view of the uncertainty surrounding the number and duration of its subscriptions. 10 December 2002. who will be responsible for transferring it to the applicant union or. Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant union claimed EUR 5. 97. 65659/01. In view of the lack of supporting vouchers. Holds by five votes to two . As to the losses sustained.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. at the applicant union’s request. Russia. in principle. 98. Ruling on an equitable basis. it reiterates that the frustration felt by members of a body that has been dissolved or prevented from acting may be taken into account under Article 41 of the Convention (see. Costs and expenses 96. THE COURT 1. This sum will be paid to Mr Ionel Gruia. § 37. 95. 3. the Court awards the applicant union EUR 10. Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP) of Turkey v. its founding members. 5 October 2004). of the proceedings for its registration in accordance with the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention. the Court dismisses the claim. Turkey. 94. the Court observes that. be the reopening. should the latter not acquire legal personality. 2. § 78. no. Default interest 99.000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. no 25141/94. C. to which should be added three percentage points.
Q. to Mr Ionel Gruia. the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Ziemele and Tsotsoria is annexed to this judgment. who shall be responsible for transferring that sum to the aforementioned union or.C. (c) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. EUR 10.M.000 (ten thousand euros). plus any tax that may be chargeable. ROMANIA JUDGMENT (a) that the respondent State is to pay. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant union’s claim for just satisfaction. pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. the representative of the Păstorul cel Bun trade union. and notified in writing on 31 January 2012. as appropriate. S. covering all heads of damage. 4.22 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. (b) that the above amount is to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. J. Done in French. . Santiago Quesada Registrar Josep Casadevall President In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court. its founding members.
In accordance with the 2007 Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church. protected by Article 9 of the Convention. the exercise of various religions. and Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. In the . interpreted in the light of Article 11. 3. particularly between opposing groups (see. 30985/96. In our view this case raises a relatively new issue for the Court as regards the autonomous existence of the religious community in view of a proposal to establish a trade union by some members of that community. Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article 9. § 118. Secondly. there is a certain procedure that has to be followed. no. members of the clergy have to receive the blessing of the Bishop for the establishment of. for example. Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. have the right to form trade unions and that such unions have indeed been registered (see paragraph 84 of the judgment). 22 January 2009). We note that in Romania members of the clergy. 45701/99. or participation in. ECHR 2005-XI). For these reasons. with some exceptions. no. Bulgaria. ECHR 2000-XI. ROMANIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 23 JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ZIEMELE AND TSOTSORIA 1. as recognised by Government Ordinance no. foundations or other organisations (see paragraph 26).SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. 44774/98. § 107. We do not share the view of the majority that there was a violation of Article 11 in that the applicants were prevented from establishing the trade union in question. ECHR 2001-XII. what is the role of the State from the point of view of its obligations under the Convention? 2. it is important to point out that the question has arisen in a very particular context. neutrally and impartially. all other aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable (see Hasan and Chaush v. religious harmony and tolerance in a democratic society. At the outset. Their role is to help maintain public order. Turkey [GC]. It has also acknowledged that participation in the organisational life of the community is a manifestation of one’s religion. the Court has held that under Article 9. associations. Therefore the main question is whether and in what manner the clergy and other employees of a Church have the right to form trade unions. Nevertheless. Moldova. § 103. nos. faiths and beliefs. Bulgaria [GC]. the right of believers to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function free from arbitrary State intervention in its organisation. no. 412/03 and 35677/04. § 62. The autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 of the Convention affords. Leyla Şahin v. The Court has repeatedly stated that States have responsibility for ensuring. The applicants are 35 clergymen and lay employees of the Romanian Orthodox Church (see paragraph 6). 53/2008.
the majority paid particular attention to the analysis carried out by the domestic courts and considered that they had not made a sufficiently careful analysis of all the pertinent arguments (see paragraph 86). At the same time. The applicants argued that the main purpose was the defence of their social and economic rights. In their view. It naturally talks about the right to strike and states that the Archbishop has to report on promotions. members of the clergy and lay employees of the Church might need to be distinguished. This conclusion is not contested by the applicants. ROMANIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION present case. 4. Certainly. Secondly. and decided that they could not grant the registration of the trade union since it would be contrary to the requirements of the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church. It seems that the Court of Appeal did not pay attention to these aspects. for example. transfers and budgetary issues. Their argument is that the trade union did not have any plans to contradict the religious dogma or structure of the Church. the courts came to the conclusion that the intention was to create a trade union within the Church. when the Government took note of the new Statute of the Church. the applicants themselves did not argue that the clergy and lay employees should be distinguished as to their rights. We could agree with the argument that. Admittedly. In this text one can read that the trade union plans to ensure that all members of the trade union have work which corresponds to their professional training and skills. this derives from the wording of the Statute of the Church. nor did they attempt to create two different trade unions. one could see problems in the manner in which the Court of Appeal reasoned. Indeed. the constitution also mentions that the trade union will organise and finance religious activities. There is also an important question as to what law should apply with respect to this dispute. The majority of the Chamber found that the establishment of the particular trade union would not have interfered with the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the manner of their expression (see paragraph 75). as well as explanations about the duties of priests within the hierarchy of the Church. the national courts had not sufficiently proved that the trade union’s constitution was incompatible with democratic society or even represented a threat to democracy (see paragraph 76). which provides for the special procedure only in relation to the clergy. Among other things. and whether the applicants were aware of the limitations that might be imposed on their rights before that date. the text of the trade union’s constitution is of particular importance in the case (see paragraph 6). since the facts of the dispute arose before 2008. The Government did submit that the national courts had tried to identify the nature of the trade union and that it was a difficult question because of the mixed composition of the group of individuals concerned. 5.24 SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. We consider that in the light of these elements of the trade . the domestic courts took into account the explanations of the Archbishop as regards the requirement of his blessing. Finally.
While we agree with the majority that it is important to find the right balance between. and its autonomy. we do not find a violation of Article 11 and we do not endorse the just satisfaction awarded. which spells out only three groups of individuals whose right to form trade unions may be restricted (see paragraph 63). as protected by Articles 9 and 11. It also transpires from the various submissions of the parties to be found in the case file that in the background to this case there were disagreements within the Church. If that is the case. on the one hand. namely the collision between the principle of the autonomous existence of a religious community. . ROMANIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 25 union’s constitution the national courts could reasonably consider that its creation would challenge the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church and the manner in which decisions were taken within it.SINDICATUL “PĂSTORUL CEL BUN” v. based on the importance of the right to form trade unions and the reading of paragraph 2 of Article 11. Unfortunately. as protected by Article 11 (see point 2 above). and the right to form trade unions. and. 6. In conclusion. we do not find that the assessment by the national courts of this very delicate situation was unreasonable. the Chamber does not examine the main tension that the facts present. Consequently. the freedom of religion of the Church and its members. the national courts are certainly better placed to assess the facts. on the other. the protection of fundamental human rights. The constitution does not show that the sole purpose of the trade union members was to communicate with the State authorities in view of the fact that they had employment contracts which were in some manner recognised by the State. the Chamber seems to have answered the question posed above (see point 1 above) in the affirmative.
Documents Similar To Case of Sindicatul Pastorul Cel Bun v. Romania
Case of Frette v. France
Constitutional Framework of Labour Laws
More From Tiberius Cristian
Dreptul European Concurentei
Costica Voicu Tgd
Management Comercial URA
Voltaire Philosophical Dictionary 1--Works.V3 a-Calends
Speţe Seminar Plata, Dr. Creditorului Plus Erata NCC
Sinteza Sociologie Generala Si Juridica
Dreptul Comecial - Dualism Si Monism
Reglementarea Folosirii Forţei În Acţiunile Militare Naţionale În Contextul Respectării Drepturilor Omului
Sondaj de Opinie Publica Cu Privire La Coruptia Din Justitie
Curs 3 Sistemul EM - Globalizarea
Teme majore de Drept European
Incuviintarea Executarii Silite in Noul Cod de Procedura Civila Extras
Interactive Course on Professional Role, Legal Ethics, And Lawyering Skills Course
Drept International Public Curs ID II Editia 2010
Criminalistica Sem 2
Consideratii Teoretice Si Practice Privind Infractiunile Silvice