FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BULGARIAN ORTHODOX OLD CALENDAR CHURCH AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 56751/13)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
20 April 2021
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church and Others v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Tim Eicke, President,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 56751/13) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church (“the applicant church”) and five Bulgarian nationals whose details feature in the appended table, on 28 August 2013;
the decision to give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) notice of the complaints concerning (a) the alleged limitation on the applicants’ right to manifest their freedom of religion; (b) the alleged discrimination against the applicants in the exercise of that right; and (c) the alleged lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to examine the case simultaneously with the case of Independent Orthodox Church and Zahariev v. Bulgaria (no. 76620/14);
Noting:
the withdrawal from the case of Mr Yonko Grozev, the judge elected in respect of Bulgaria;
the Government’s objection that the application should not be examined by a Committee, which the Court rejects,
Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case chiefly concerns a complaint, falling to be examined under Article 9 read in the light of Article 11 of the Convention, that the Bulgarian courts’ refusal to register a church adhering to the Old Calendarist variant of Eastern Orthodoxy owing to the similarity of its name with that of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which is recognised by law, amounted to an unlawful and unjustified limitation on the right of that church and its adherents to manifest their religion. The case also concerns the question, under Article 13 of the Convention, whether the church and its adherents had an effective domestic remedy in respect of the refusal to register the church. THE FACTS
2. The applicants were represented by Ms N. Dobreva, a lawyer practising in Sofia. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova of the Ministry of Justice. HISTORY OF THE APPLICANT CHURCH
4. In 1968, at the time of the communist regime in Bulgaria, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church decided to switch from the Julian Calendar to the Revised Julian Calendar. As in the other countries in which that change had taken place earlier (Greece and Romania in the 1920s) some of the clergy and adherents of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church disagreed with the abandonment of the Julian calendar. There were also divergences over other doctrinal and canonical points, as well as with respect to the degree of autonomy of the church vis-à-vis the communist regime. As a result, the “Old Calendarists”, mostly centred on a convent in Knyazhevo, disaffiliated themselves from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which for its part disavowed them. 5. In the mid-1980s the Bulgarian Old Calendarists established links with the Greek Old Calendarist Church, and in 1988 the second applicant, who later went on to become head of the applicant church (see paragraph 8 below) was ordained into the priesthood in an Old Calendarist monastery in Greece. In 1993 the second applicant was consecrated as bishop by bishops of the Greek Old Calendarist Church and of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church, which also recognised the applicant church as autocephalous. 6. The same year, 1993, the applicant church applied for registration to the Religious Denominations Directorate attached to the Council of Ministers, which was then the authority in charge of registering religious denominations in Bulgaria. The request remained without a formal reply. 7. In the years after 1993 the applicant church grew into an active religious community; by 2013 it had twenty-four priests and about two thousand adherents. Although in the absence of legal personality it could not itself erect or own places of worship, during that period it was able to build one cathedral church, fifteen churches and four chapels, as well as a monastery, all registered under the names of individual priests and believers. However, when the owners of a church and a chapel left the applicant church, it lost the use of those two buildings. Another consequence of the fact that the places of worship did not belong to the applicant church in law was that it could not obtain tax exemptions with regard to them (see paragraph 28 below). The church was also unable itself to receive donations, formally employ its clergy, or run commercial activities related to its religious affairs, such as the sale of ritual objects and religious books. POSITIONS OF THE OTHER FIVE APPLICANTS IN THE APPLICANT CHURCH
8. The second applicant is the head of the applicant church (“First Hierarch”). The third applicant is the secretary of the church’s council. The fourth applicant is a deacon of the church. The fifth applicant is a nun at the church’s convent. The sixth applicant is a member of the church’s council. ATTEMPT TO REGISTER THE APPLICANT CHURCH IN 2011-13
9. In November 2011 the applicant church applied to the Sofia City Court for registration. It enclosed with its application a certificate, issued in June 2011 by a State-owned company which keeps a database of all companies and not-for-profit organisations, that its name did not match that of any other such entity. 10. As allowed by the rules of procedure, the Sofia City Court invited the Religious Denominations Directorate (see paragraph 6 above) to comment on the registration request. The Directorate advised the court that, since Article 13 § 3 of the Constitution and section 10 of the Religious Denominations Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) proclaimed Eastern Orthodoxy as the traditional religion of the Bulgarian people and provided that its representative was the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see paragraphs 20 and 34 below), it would file its comments only after obtaining the opinion of the Holy Synod of that church. 11. The second applicant objected, stating that admitting submissions on its registration request by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church would be in breach of the rules of procedure. He asked the court to instruct the Directorate to make its own submissions. 12. The Directorate filed its comments in February 2012. It briefly stated that in its view the name of the applicant church was contrary to Article 13 § 3 of the Constitution and section 10 of the 2002 Act (see paragraphs 20 and 34 below). It went on to say that, in view of the importance of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Bulgarian society, it had asked its Holy Synod to comment on the registration request, and enclosed that Synod’s written submissions with its comments. 13. In its submissions the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church stated, inter alia, that the applicant church was identical to that church; that the case concerned a matter of national importance; that no other church but the Bulgarian Orthodox Church could use the word “Orthodox” in its name; and that only the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, rather than self-proclaimed Orthodox communities, could represent Eastern Orthodoxy in Bulgaria. The applicant church could not therefore pretend to be Orthodox, but there would be no bar to its registration as “Bulgarian Old Calendar Church”, without using the word “Orthodox”. 14. On 27 February 2012 the Sofia City Court refused to register the applicant church (see реш. от 27.02.2012 г. по ф. д. № 665/2012 г., СГС). It began by noting that the submissions by the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church enclosed with the Directorate’s comments were irrelevant and were not to be taken into account. The court went on to say that although each religious community was in principle entitled to be registered, such registration was subject to conditions. Under paragraph 3 of the transitional and concluding provisions of the 2002 Act (see paragraph 31 below), persons who had seceded from a registered religious institution before the Act’s entry into force in breach of that institution’s internal rules could not use the name of that institution or its assets. In the light of the similar prohibition of identical names in section 15(2) of the 2002 Act (see paragraph 30 below), this had to be construed as also applying to a name resembling that of the original institution. It transpired from the minutes of the applicant church’s founding meeting that it had seceded from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1993 owing to doctrinal differences. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s internal rules did not only bar such secession but even elevated it into a canonical transgression. It followed that the applicant church could not have a name identical to that of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church or use its assets, and it was beyond doubt that its name was identical. Its registration request was therefore to be refused. 15. The applicant church appealed. It pointed out that its name – Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church – was not the same as that of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and that the correct interpretation of section 15(2) of the 2002 Act and paragraph 3 of its transitional and concluding provisions (see paragraphs 30 and 31 below), was that only fully identical names were barred, with a view to avoiding confusion. The words “Old Calendar” were sufficient in that respect, and precluded any confusion between the two churches. The extensive construction of those provisions espoused by the Sofia City Court meant that no Eastern Orthodox church other than the Bulgarian Orthodox Church could obtain registration. This was contrary to the aims of the Act and incompatible with Article 9 of the Convention. The goal of section 15(2) of the Act was to prevent the simultaneous registration of religious denominations with truly identical names, which would hinder their identification, rather than to bar the registration of more than one religious community from the same denomination. Indeed, many Evangelical, Baptist and other churches from one and the same denomination had already been registered. For its part, paragraph 3 of the Act’s transitional and concluding provisions had been intended simply to resolve disputes about the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s assets, whereas the applicant church laid no claim to those assets. A wide interpretation of those provisions and a ruling that the applicant church’s adherents could not secede from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was also contrary to this Court’s construction of Article 9 of the Convention, as expounded, in particular, in Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria ((merits), nos. 412/03 and 35677/04, 22 January 2009). 16. On 23 April 2012 the Sofia Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to register the applicant church (see реш. № 633 от 23.04.2012 г. по ф. д. № 1143/2012 г., САС). It agreed with the reasons given by the lower court. It was clear that the applicant church’s founders had seceded from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1993 and wished to obtain registration as a separate religious denomination, which was precluded by paragraph 3 of the 2002 Act’s transitional and concluding provisions. The applicant church’s founders had used the same name and simply added the words “Old Calendar” to it. By section 10(1) of the Act (see paragraph 34 below), Eastern Orthodoxy was the traditional religion in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was its embodiment and representative, and under the terms of section 15(2) of the Act (see paragraph 30 below) there could exist no more than one religious denomination with the same name and seat. The applicant church’s registration request was at variance with those requirements. 17. The applicant church appealed on points of law. It reiterated the arguments which it had put forward in the proceedings before the lower court (see paragraph 15 above), and added that section 10(1) of the 2002 Act could not serve as grounds for refusing to register a religious denomination. It also submitted that there was no basis for finding that it had ever been part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church; paragraph 3 of the Act’s transitional and concluding provisions did not therefore apply to it. The ruling of the Sofia Court of Appeal was also contrary to the principle of religious pluralism. 18. As required under the rules of procedure, the applicant church enclosed with the appeal submissions explaining why it should be admitted for examination. The church argued that the question whether the interpretation of section 15(2) of the 2002 Act and paragraph 3 of its transitional and concluding provisions adopted by the Sofia Court of Appeal was correct – more specifically, in line with the aim of those provisions and with Article 37 of the Constitution (see paragraph 20 below) and Article 9 of the Convention – was an important point of law. It also submitted that the question whether names containing different words were identical was likewise an important point of law on which the Supreme Court of Cassation had no case-law, either in relation to religious denominations or in relation to other legal entities such as political parties, associations and commercial companies. 19. In a final decision of 29 March 2013 (опр. № 263 от 20.03.2013 г. по т. д. № 443/2012 г., ВКС, I т. о.), the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to admit the appeal for examination. It held that the questions formulated by the applicant church did not warrant such admission. In particular, the question whether the court of appeal had correctly construed the 2002 Act concerned the merits of the appeal rather than whether it should be admitted. As for the other question formulated by the applicant church, it was one of fact rather than law. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
BULGARIAN LAWThe Constitution

20. The relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution read:
Article 13
“1. Religions shall be free. 2. Religious institutions shall be separate from the State. 3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity shall be considered the traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria. 4. Religious institutions and communities, and religious beliefs, shall not be used for political ends.”
Article 37
“1. Freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and the choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The State shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations, and between believers and non-believers. 2. Freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”
21. In June 1992 the Constitutional Court held, inter alia, that the State could interfere with the internal organisation of religious communities and institutions only in the situations contemplated in Articles 13 § 4 and 37 § 2 of the Constitution (see реш. № 5 от 11.06.1992 г. по к. д. № 11/1992 г., КС, обн. ДВ, бр. 49/1992 г.). The Religious Denominations Act 2002Background to the enactment of the Act

22. Up until the end of 2002, the organisational structure and functioning of religious denominations and their official registration had been governed by the Religious Denominations Act 1949. According to the authorities’ usual practice, the Act was construed as requiring each religious denomination to have a single leadership and as prohibiting parallel organisations of the same denomination (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 57, 16 December 2004, and Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others (merits), cited above, § 68). 23. After the demise of the communist regime and an ensuing struggle within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church which resulted in two opposing leaderships, Parliament enacted the Religious Denominations Act 2002 with a view to putting an end to that division (for details, see Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 9-48). The Act came into force on 1 January 2003. 24. The record of the parliamentary debates leading up to the Act’s passage reveals an almost unanimous view that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s unity was of crucial national importance owing to its role in shaping and preserving Bulgarian national identity over the centuries (ibid., § 45). Content of the right to religion according to the Act
25. Section 5(1) provides that the right to religion can be exercised by, among other things, forming or taking part in a religious community and organising the institutions of that community. Section 6(1)(1) goes on to specify that this right encompasses the right to create and maintain religious communities and institutions which have a structure and representation suited to the convictions of their members. Paragraph 1(3) of the Act’s transitional and concluding provisions defines a “religious community” as a voluntary association of people professing a given religion and carrying out religious services, rites and ceremonies, and a “religious institution” as a “religious community” which has been registered in accordance with the Act and has legal personality. Provisions governing the registration of religious communities
(a)   Effects of registration
26. Section 14 provides that religious communities may acquire legal personality under the conditions laid down in the Act. This includes official registration by the Sofia City Court (section 15(1)). 27. When a religious denomination has acquired legal personality, it may have and dispose of its own assets (section 21(1)), and receive State subsidies (sections 21(3) and 28(1)). 28. According to sections 24(1)(9) and 71a(1) of the Local Taxes and Fees Act 1997, temples owned by duly registered religious denominations and the land on which they have been built are exempt from local taxes and waste disposal fees. Sections 24(2) and 71a(2) make the exemption subject to the land and buildings at issue not having commercial uses unconnected with their main religious function. Section 71a came into force on 1 January 2014. (b)   Registration requirements
29. The public register kept by the Sofia City Court must include information about, inter alia, the name of each registered religious denomination (section 18(2) of the 2002 Act). 30. Section 9 provides that each religious denomination is characterised by its name and by the beliefs of the people which make up its religious community. For its part, section 15(2) provides that there can be no more than one religious denomination with the same name. 31. Paragraph 3 of the Act’s transitional and concluding provisions provides that persons who have seceded from a registered religious institution before the Act’s entry into force in breach of that institution’s internal rules are not entitled to use its name or assets. 32. The Sofia City Court and the Sofia Court of Appeal have relied on those provisions to hold that a religious denomination may be registered only if its name and religious doctrine differ from those of an already registered denomination (see реш. № 1519 от 17.08.2012 г. по ф. д. № 1017/2012 г., САС; реш. № 1145 от 06.06.2014 г. по в. гр. д. № 2076/2014 г., САС; and реш. № 341 от 06.02.2020 г. по в. г. д. № 3781/2019 г., САС) or of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see реш. № 677 от 29.04.2011 г. по ф. д. № 542/2011 г., САС; реш. № 1114 от 04.07.2011 г. по ф. д. № 513/2011 г., САС; реш. № 1447 от 08.07.2013 г. по ф. д. № 183/2013 г., САС; реш. № 2512 от 12.17.2015 г. по ф. д. № 3876/2015 г., САС; and реш. № 2307 от 06.12.2016 г. по ф. д. № 5164/2016 г., САС). With particular regard to the identity of the name, in those decisions the courts consistently held that slight differences in the words composing the name or in their order are not sufficient to consider that a denomination’s name is different. They thus held that the names “Orthodox Church in Bulgaria”, “Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church”, “Independent Orthodox Church”, “Orthodox Church” and “Orthodox Christian Church” were all “the same” as that of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.[1]
33. 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). Ex lege legal personality of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
34. In contrast to all other religious communities, under section 10(2) of the 2002 Act the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was granted legal personality by operation of law (ex lege). Section 10(1), which echoes Article 13 § 3 of the Constitution (see paragraph 20 above), provides that Eastern Orthodoxy is the “traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria”, that “[i]t has a historical role for the Bulgarian State and a current importance for its Statehood”, and that its “embodiment and representative is the self-ruling Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which under the name Patriarchy is a successor of the Bulgarian Exarchate and a member of the Unified, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Not-for-profit legal persons assisting and popularising a religious denomination
35. Section 27(1) of the 2002 Act provides that, with the prior assent of the respective religious institution, it is possible to create a not-for-profit legal person seeking to assist and popularise a religious denomination which already has legal personality. Section 27(2) goes on to specify that such not-for-profit legal persons are not entitled to carry out activities which amount to the public practicing of religion. 36. In 2017 the Sofia Court of Appeal upheld a refusal to register an association promoting Eastern Orthodoxy in the absence of evidence of prior assent by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see реш. № 1184 от 25.05.2017 г. по ф. д. № 2316/2017 г., САС). 37. In 2010 the Sofia Court of Appeal relied on, inter alia, section 27(2) to uphold the forced dissolution of an association of Ahmadiyya Muslims which was carrying out religious services and ceremonies even though it had earlier been refused registration as a religious denomination (see реш. № 106 от 19.02.2010 г. по гр. д. № 1407/2008 г., САС; appeal on points of law not admitted: see опр. № 789 от 16.12.2010 г. по т. д. № 534/2010 г., ВКС, II т. о.). 38. In 2012 the Sliven Regional Court likewise relied on, inter alia, section 27(2) to order the dissolution of a Muslin association which was organising public religious talks and sermons and public screenings of biographical films concerning a religious leader (see реш. № 98 от 09.11.2012 г. по гр. д. № 391/2012 г., ОС-Сливен). 39. In 2013 the Shumen Regional Court similarly proceeded to order the dissolution of an association teaching Islam to minors whom it was sheltering in a hostel run by it (see реш. № 92 от 09.04.2013 г. по гр. д. № 623/2012 г., ОС-Шумен; upheld on appeal: see реш. № 142 от 03.10.2013 г. по гр. д. № 287/2013 г. АС-Варна, and опр. № 628 от 10.11.2014 г. по т. д. № 325/2014 г., ВКС, II т. о.). Legal challenge against the 2002 Act
40. In February 2003 fifty members of Parliament asked the Constitutional Court to declare specific provisions of the 2002 Act, including paragraph 3 of its transitional and concluding provisions – but not section 15(2) (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above) – unconstitutional and contrary to the Convention. The court gave its judgment in July 2003 (see реш. № 12 от 15.07.2003 г. по к. д. № 3/2003 г., КС, обн. ДВ, бр. 66/2003 г.). It was unable to reach a majority decision, with an equal number of justices voting for and against declaring paragraph 3 unconstitutional. Pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s usual practice, in such circumstances the request for a legal provision to be declared unconstitutional is considered to be dismissed by default. 41. The justices who voted against the request considered, inter alia, that the principle of legal certainty required that persons who had seceded from a religious denomination should not be allowed to use its name. Further, it was obvious that they could not claim a portion of its assets, as those belonged to the religious denomination as a legal person. For the justices who were of the view that paragraph 3 was unconstitutional, it purported to regulate the internal organisation of religious communities, and thus infringed their autonomy. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS
42. In its Resolution 1390 (2004), the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly noted, among other things, that the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (see paragraph 34 above) was generally seen as intended to settle the dispute between its two rival synods in favour of one of them, and that one of those synods had been effectively barred from registering as a new religious institution by the prohibition against the registration of another institution using the same name (point 7). The Assembly advised the Bulgarian authorities “either to delete [section 15(2) of the 2002 Act – see paragraph 30 above], or to ensure its interpretation in such a way that only the strict and literal identity of names and headquarters precludes the registration of a breakaway group” (point 9.2). THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 READ IN THE LIGHT OF aRTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
43. The applicants alleged that the refusal to register the applicant church had amounted to an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of religion. They relied on Article 9 of the Convention. For its part, the Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 9 read in the light of Article 11 of the Convention (see Metodiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58088/08, § 26, 15 June 2017). These provisions read, in so far as relevant:
Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)
“1. Everyone has the right ... to freedom of association with others ... 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of [this right] 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 prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ...”
Admissibility
44. The Government submitted that the complaint was abusive, as the applicant church had not met the legal criteria for registration. 45. The applicants did not comment on this point. 46. According to the Court’s case-law, the notion of “abuse” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention is to be understood as conduct of the applicant which is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application enshrined in the Convention and which impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it (see, among other authorities, Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 184, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Dimović v. Serbia, no. 24463/11, § 21, 28 June 2016). 47. There is no indication of such conduct by the applicants in this case. The question whether the applicant church’s registration request met all legal criteria under Bulgarian law is part of the broader issue of whether the refusal to register that church amounted to a “limitation” of the applicants’ right to manifest their religion which was “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. Although the Government disputed each of those points, nothing suggests that the facts which underpin them are somehow removed from reality or could be regarded as an attempt to mislead the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Harakchiev and Tolumov, § 185, and Dimović, § 23, both cited above). Even if the applicant church did not fulfil the legal criteria for registration under Bulgarian law, that does not make its application to the Court abusive. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected. 48. The complaint is, moreover, not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ submissions

(a)   The applicants
49. The applicants submitted that without legal personality the applicant church could not itself acquire and own property or keep bank accounts. This had led to difficulties with the maintenance of its places of worship, which were in law owned by individual members of the church, causing uncertainty and various legal complications, such as problems with the transfer of title whenever an individual owner of a place of worship left the religious community or died. The refusal to register the church had thus amounted to interference with their rights under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. 50. The applicants went on to argue that the interference had not been “prescribed by law”, as the wording of the provisions of the 2002 Act governing the registration of religious denominations gave rise to arbitrary decisions by the courts. Thus, the wording of section 15(2) allowed the courts to hold that names which were not truly identical but simply alike were “the same”. For its part, section 10(1) contained language which was not appropriate in a legal provision and was inconsistent with the State’s duty to remain neutral in religious matters. Under this heading the applicants also criticised the fact that the Sofia City Court could seek an expert opinion from the Religious Denominations Directorate in registration proceedings. They pointed out that these opinions often amounted to little more than cover letters to submissions of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, thus inadmissibly giving that church a say in proceedings for the registration of other Eastern Orthodox religious communities. 51. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the interference had not been justified, as it had not corresponded to any pressing social need. In their view, the reasons given by the Bulgarian courts to refuse to register the applicant church – that its name was “the same” as that of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and that its founders had earlier seceded from that church – were but a disguise for the wish to prevent any Eastern Orthodox religious community other than the Bulgarian Orthodox Church from obtaining registration. There was no risk of the applicant church being confused with that church. Its name was unique, as attested by the certificate which it had presented in the registration proceedings, and its leader did not have the title of “patriarch”. Its registration would not have in any way imperilled the rights of other Eastern Orthodox believers or the historical role and public esteem of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The only aim pursued by the refusal to register the applicant church had been to ensure the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s monopoly, in breach of the State’s duty of neutrality in religious matters. (b)   The Government
52. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant church’s autonomous functioning. The authorities had not meddled in its religious activities, and it had been conducting them without hindrance, even though it did not have legal personality. In Bulgaria, unlike in some other States, unregistered religious communities were not prohibited from setting up places of worship, holding religious services in public, producing and distributing religious literature, or engaging in other activities of that sort. It was unclear what difficulties the applicant church faced in connection with the management of its places of worship; any private-law disputes relating to them could be resolved in regular civil proceedings. The church’s assertion that it could not sell items related to its religious activities or set up educational and social services were abstract, there being no indication that it had real capacity to engage in such activities. The church was in effect free to do everything pertaining to the collective aspect of freedom of religion. 53. The Government also pointed out that the case concerned a religious community which espoused the same faith as the traditional religion in Bulgaria – Eastern Orthodoxy. As noted by the national courts, the applicant church’s adherents had disaffiliated themselves from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1993. The applicant church’s name did not sufficiently differ from the name of that church, which could lead to confusion and by law precluded its registration. It was in effect a group which had seceded from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which, by law, was further grounds for refusing to register it. The Government noted in that connection that where religious communities were concerned, their names and beliefs were often closely related. They pointed out that there was no bar to the registration of Eastern Orthodox religious communities, so long as they were sufficiently distinct from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and did not comprise people who had seceded from it. The refusal to register the applicant church had therefore been “prescribed by law”. 54. For the Government, the requirement that religious communities seeking registration have names that sufficiently set them apart was intended to prevent confusion and ensure legal certainty – and thus protect public order and the rights and freedoms of others – and was fully justified. The applicant church had not demonstrated that it had characteristics which truly distinguished it from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Article 9 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11 could not be construed as requiring the registration of identical entities within the same religious denomination whose names were not clearly different. The refusal to register the applicant church had therefore not been a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ rights to manifest their religion or freely associate.

Outcome for Article 9: violation