EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS  
Press release issued by the Registrar  
950  
13.12.2001  
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA  
AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment in the case of  
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova (no. 45701/99); the judgment is  
not final1.  
The Court held unanimously:  
that there had been violations of Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 13 (right to an  
effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and  
that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been violations of Article 14  
(prohibition of discrimination) read together with Article 9 and of Articles 6 (right to a  
fair trial) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.  
Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants  
EUR 27,025 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for legal costs and expenses. The  
judgment is in the French language only.  
1. Principal facts  
The case concerns an application lodged by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia  
(Mitropolia Basarabiei şi Exarhatul Plaiurilor) and eleven Moldovan nationals, Mr Petru  
Păduraru, Mr Petru Buburuz, Mr Ioan Eşanu, Mr Victor Rusu, Mr Anatol Goncear,  
Mr Valeriu Cernei, Mr Gheorghe Ioniţă, Mr Valeriu Matciac, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr Anatol  
Telembici and Mr Alexandru Magola. Some of the applicants live in Chişinău; the others live  
in various other Moldovan towns. The applicants hold official positions in the applicant  
church.  
The case concerns the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant (Orthodox  
Christian) church. The refusal was upheld on 9 December 1997 by a final judgment of the  
Supreme Court of Justice. That court held that the question of recognition of the applicant  
church could be resolved only by the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, which had been  
recognised by the State and from which the applicant church had split, and that any  
intervention in the conflict by the Moldovan authorities could only make matters worse. In  
addition, it held that the applicants and the other adherents of the applicant church could  
freely practise their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.  
1. Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a  
Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the  
17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a  
serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue  
of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or  
issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber  
judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not  
intend to make a request to refer.  
- 2 -  
2. Procedure and composition of the Court  
The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 June 1998  
and referred to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. It was declared  
admissible on 7 June 2001. A hearing was held on 2 October 2001.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President,  
Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch),  
Luigi Ferrari Bravo1 (Italian),  
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),  
Josep Casadevall (Andorran),  
Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian),  
Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), judges,  
and also Michael O’Boyle, Section Registrar.  
3. Summary of the judgment2  
Complaints  
Relying on Article 9, the applicants complained of the Moldovan State’s refusal to recognise  
the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia as a church and alleged that under the relevant  
domestic legislation a religious denomination could not be active inside Moldovan territory  
unless it had first been recognised by the authorities. The applicants further alleged a  
violation of Article 6 § 1 and complained that the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise  
the applicant church prevented it from obtaining legal personality, so that it had been  
deprived of the right of access to a court in order to obtain a ruling on any complaint relating  
to its rights, and in particular its property rights. Relying on Article 9 read together with  
Article 14, they alleged that, in the exercise of the rights derived from the freedom to  
manifest one’s religion through observance, the applicant church was the victim of  
discrimination based on religion since it was not entitled to judicial protection. They further  
complained of a violation of Article 11 on account of the authorities’ refusal to recognise the  
applicant church, coupled with their stubborn determination to regard the applicants as  
members of the Metropolitan Church of Moldova. Lastly, the applicants alleged a violation of  
Article 13, asserting that in view of the absence of legal protection for the applicant church  
they did not have an effective remedy before a national authority to which they could submit  
the complaints they had raised before the Court.  
1. Judge elected in respect of San Marino.  
2. This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.  
- 3 -  
Decision of the Court  
Article 9  
The Court noted that as the applicant church had not been recognised it could not operate. In  
particular, its priests could not take divine service, its members could not meet to practise  
their religion and, not having legal personality, it was not entitled to judicial protection of its  
assets. Accordingly, the Court took the view that the Moldovan Government’s refusal to  
recognise the applicant church constituted interference with the right of that church and the  
other applicants to freedom of religion, as guaranteed by Article 9 § 1. Without giving a  
categorical answer to the question whether the provisions of the Religious Denominations  
Act of 24 March 1992 satisfied the requirements of foreseeability and precision, the Court  
was prepared to accept that the interference in question was “prescribed by law” before  
deciding whether it pursued a “legitimate aim” and was “necessary in a democratic society”.  
It considered that in the present case the interference complained of pursued a legitimate aim  
for the purposes of Article 9 § 2, namely the protection of public order and public safety.  
The Court held that in taking the view that the applicant church was not a new denomination  
and in making its recognition depend on the will of a recognised ecclesiastical authority, the  
Metropolitan Church of Moldova, the Government had failed to discharge their duty of  
neutrality and impartiality. With regard to the tolerance allegedly shown by the respondent  
Government towards the applicant church and its members, the Court did not accept that this  
was a substitute for recognition, since recognition alone could confer rights on the applicants.  
Moreover, it noted that on a number of occasions the applicants had been unable to defend  
themselves against acts of intimidation, since the authorities had ruled that only lawful  
activities could enjoy legal protection. Lastly, it noted that before recognising other religious  
denominations the authorities had not applied the criteria they made use of in order to deny  
recognition to the applicant church and that no justification had been put forward by the  
Moldovan Government for this difference in treatment.  
In conclusion, the Court considered that the refusal to recognise the applicant church had  
such consequences for the applicants’ freedom of religion that it could not be regarded as  
proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It had not therefore been necessary in a  
democratic society and there had been a violation of Article 9.  
Article 13  
The Court noted that, in its judgment of 9 December 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice had  
held that the Government’s refusal to reply to the application for recognition submitted by the  
applicant church was not unlawful, nor was it in breach of Article 9 of the Convention, since  
the applicants could manifest their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.  
However, in making that ruling the Supreme Court of Justice had not replied to the  
applicants’ main complaints, namely their wish to meet to practise their religion collectively  
within a church distinct from the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, and to have the right of  
access to a court to defend their rights and protect their property, given that only  
denominations recognised by the State enjoyed legal protection. Accordingly, not being  
- 4 -  
recognised by the State, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia had no rights which it could  
assert in the Supreme Court of Justice. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice under  
Article 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure was therefore not effective.  
The Court further noted that although the Religious Denominations Act of 24 March 1992  
required religious denominations to be recognised by the Government and to comply with  
Moldovan legislation, it did not contain any specific provision governing the recognition  
procedure or making remedies available in the event of a dispute.  
The Court accordingly took the view that the applicants had not been able to obtain redress  
before a national authority in respect of their complaint concerning their right to freedom of  
religion. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.  
* * *  
The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).  
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights  
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex  
Contacts:Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)  
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)  
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with  
alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998  
a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time  
Commission and Court.