Showing posts with label Bulgaria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bulgaria. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Bulgaria Violates European Convention by Failing to Recognize Same-Sex Married Couple

In Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Sept 5, 2023) (full text of decision in French) (Court's English Summary of decision), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Respect for private and family life) by failing to have a procedure for recognizing or registering a same-sex marriage entered in another country. According to the English language summary of the decision, the Court said in part:

... [I]n the absence of official recognition, same-sex couples were nothing more than de facto unions for the purposes of national law, even where a marriage had been validly contracted abroad. The partners were unable to regulate fundamental aspects of life as a couple such as those concerning property, family matters and inheritance, except as private individuals entering into contracts under the ordinary law, where possible, rather than as an officially recognised couple. They were not able to rely on the existence of their relationship in dealings with the judicial or administrative authorities or with third parties. Even assuming that national law had allowed the applicants to apply to the domestic courts for protection of their basic needs as a couple, the necessity of taking such a step would have constituted in itself a hindrance to respect for their private and family life.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Tuesday, December 20, 2022

European Court: Bulgaria Violated Rights of Evangelical Churches by Warnings Circulated to Schools

In Tonchev v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Dec. 13, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that municipal officials in Bulgaria violated Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights when they circulated materials to schools containing hostile information about Christian evangelical churches.  According to the English language press release from the Court on the case:

The Court pointed out that Article 9 of the Convention did not prohibit the public authorities from making critical statements about representatives or members of religious communities. However, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such statements had to be supported by evidence of specific acts liable to pose a threat to public order or to the interests of others. They also had to avoid casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs in question and must remain proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, it did not appear from the circular letter and the information notice distributed to schools that the authors had been mindful of the authorities’ duty of neutrality and impartiality. On the contrary, these documents contained unqualified negative judgments, in particular those portraying the Evangelical Churches as “dangerous sects” which “contravene[d] Bulgarian legislation, citizens’ rights and public order” and “create[d] divisions and opposition within the Bulgarian nation on religious grounds”. They also made unfounded references to certain proven cases of improper proselytising as reflecting the usual practice of those Churches. Lastly, they drew comparisons with the dominant Orthodox religion and made remarks linking, in particular, the lack of veneration of “national saints” with the division of the Bulgarian nation. Those remarks could be interpreted as casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs and practices of the Churches concerned.

While the Court regarded as justifiable the intention to warn pupils against possible abusive practices by certain religious groups by informing them about such practices, it was not persuaded that the use of language such as that referred to in the preceding paragraph was necessary for that purpose.

Sunday, May 23, 2021

European Court Says That Bulgaria Should Have Recognized Break-Away Orthodox Churches

In a case decided last month, Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, April 21, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Bulgaria had violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register a church adhering to the Old Calendarist variant of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Bulgarian courts relied on a provision in the Religious Denominations Act of 2002 providing that 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. The European Court said in part:

62. Requiring a religious organisation seeking registration to take on a name which is not liable to mislead believers and the general public ... can in principle be seen as a justified limitation on its right freely to choose its name.... But the names of the applicant church and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were not identical, the applicant church’s name being sufficiently distinguished by the words “Old Calendar”. It is well known that Old Calendarist churches, which first appeared in the 1920s, when some Eastern Orthodox churches switched from the Julian Calendar to the Revised Julian Calendar, are distinct from those Eastern Orthodox churches.... Moreover, nothing suggests that the applicant church wished to identify itself with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church....

63.  In so far as the Government argued that the overlap between the beliefs and practices of the applicant church and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was also a bar to the applicant church’s registration...- it should be noted that the assessment of whether or not religious beliefs are identical is not a matter for the State authorities, but for the religious communities themselves....  Pluralism, which is the basic fabric of democracy, is incompatible with State action compelling a religious community to unite under a single leadership.... 

64.  The refusal to register the applicant church was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. It follows that there has been a breach of Article 9 of the Convention read in the light of Article 11.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

In a second case decided the same day, Independent Orthodox Church v. Bulgaria, (ECHR April 21, 2021), the same section of the European Court held that Bulgaria violated Article 9 of the Convention when it refused to recognize a new church because its name and beliefs were the same as those of the existing Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Court commented:

[T]he State does not need to ensure that religious communities remain under a unified leadership.... Even if the creation of the applicant church was ... prompted by a division within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, this fact does not alter that.... Nor does the fact that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s unity is considered of the utmost importance for its adherents and for Bulgarian society in general.

Friday, June 16, 2017

European Court Finds Bulgaria Violated Convention In Refusing To Recognize Ahmadiyya Group

In Metodiev and Others v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, June 15, 2017), (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Bulgaria had violated the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 9 (freedom of religion) in refusing to register the new Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as a denomination under Bulgaria's Religions Act.  According to the Court's press release summarizing the decision:
the sole reason given by the Supreme Court of Cassation for the refusal was the lack of a sufficiently precise and clear indication of the beliefs and rites of the Ahmadi religion in the association’s constitution. The domestic court had concluded that the constitution did not meet the statutory requirements of the Religions Act, which sought to distinguish between the various religions and to avoid confrontation between religious communities....
The Court took the view that the approach adopted by the Court of Cassation would lead in practice to refusing registration of any new religious association having the same doctrine as an existing religion. That approach could result in allowing the existence of only one religious association for each religious movement and in requiring all followers to adhere to it.
A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

European Court Says Bulgaria Violated Religious Rights of Muslims By Inadequate Response To Mosque Demonstration

The European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment yesterday held that Bulgarian authorites violated Muslim worshipers' right to practice their religion by the inadequate response to a demonstration in front of a mosque in the center of Sofia in 2011.  In the demonstration, leaders, members and supporters of the Bulgarian political party Ataka clashed with Muslim worshippers who had gathered for Friday prayer. In Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Feb. 24, 2015), the court said:
the outcome of the police’s response that day was that a large number of demonstrators were able to stand within touching distance of Banya Bashi mosque, to shout insults at praying worshippers, to engage in threating and provocative gestures and actions, and ultimately to gain access to the mosque. They enjoyed a virtually unfettered right to protest at the mosque that day, while the applicant and the other worshippers had their prayers entirely disrupted. It is plain, therefore, the police’s actions were confined simply to limiting the violence which broke out that day and that no proper consideration was given to how to strike the appropriate balance in ensuring respect for the effective exercise of the rights of the demonstrators and the applicant and the other worshippers.
Novinite reports on the decision.