DECISION № 214
Sofia, 16.12.2024
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION of the Republic of Bulgaria, Industrial Chamber, Second Division, in a court docket session on the twenty-first of November two thousand and twenty-four, composed of:
CHAIRMAN: BOYAN BALEVSKI
MEMBERS: ANNA BAEVA
ANNA NAENOVA
beneath the secretary Ivona Moikina, having heard the report of Choose Anna Baeva, case quantity 563 on the stock for 2022.3. and so as to pronounce, took into consideration the next:
The proceedings are beneath Artwork. 290 of the Civil Process Code.
It was established upon a cassation attraction of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-style Church”, represented by F. D. S., by legal professional N. D. by the Supreme Administrative Courtroom, in opposition to choice No. 2 of 07.02.2023 on attraction No. 5/2022 of the Sofia Courtroom of Enchantment, which confirmed choice No. 65 of 01.11.2022 on attraction No. 25/22 on the stock of the Sofia Metropolis Courtroom, TO, which refused to enter the identical spiritual establishment, established at a constituent meeting on 13.06.2022, within the public register beneath Artwork. 18 of the Regulation on Religions on the court docket.
The cassation applicant maintains that the appealed choice is illegal and unfounded. It challenges the appellate court docket’s conclusion {that a} situation for the registration of the spiritual establishment is recognition by the native Jap Orthodox Church beneath canon regulation, by presenting issues for its contradiction each with the precise directions of the ECHR on the current case, but additionally with the repeated interpretation of the ECHR of the constructive obligations of the Bulgarian state to ensure regional pluralism – that the state, represented by the court docket, ought to stay impartial and neutral in exercising its regulatory powers and in its relations with completely different religions, denominations and teams inside them, by making certain that the disputing teams inside them are equal and revered. It maintains that recognition by an area church as a situation for registration will not be offered for within the regulation, however was invented by the appellate court docket, and deprives all residents of the Republic of Bulgaria who don’t want to be beneath the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Orthodox Church for one or one other spiritual cause of the best to self-determination as Jap Orthodox, thus violating their proper to free selection of faith and self-government. It finds that Article 37, paragraph 2 of the Structure and Article 7, paragraphs 1 and a couple of of the Civil Code exhaustively listing the grounds on which the best to faith could also be restricted, and so they can’t be interpreted broadly. It factors out that the “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church” has by no means been a structural division of the BOC – BP and couldn’t have been separated as such, however emerged as an unbiased spiritual neighborhood on the will of particular person people, Orthodox Christians, who haven’t any formal commitments to the constructions, nor claims to the property of the BOC – BP. Subsequently, it requests that the appealed choice be annulled and that the requested entry be granted.
By Decision No. 2279 of 16.08.2024. beneath Case No. 563/2023. of the Supreme Courtroom of Cassation, the TC has admitted a cassation attraction of the attraction choice on the problem of what are the stipulations for registration of an Jap Orthodox denomination in Bulgaria and whether or not a situation for such registration is the popularity of the neighborhood as a spiritual establishment by different native Orthodox church buildings. Cassation evaluate is allowed on the idea of Artwork. 280, para. 1, merchandise 2 of the Civil Process Code to confirm whether or not the decision of the problem given by the appellate court docket corresponds to choice No. 5 of 11.07.1992 beneath case quantity No. 11/1992 of the Constitutional Courtroom of the Republic of Bulgaria.
The Supreme Courtroom of Cassation, Chamber of Commerce, Second Division, having assessed the information within the case in view of the said grounds of cassation and in accordance with its powers beneath Artwork. 290, para. 2 of the Civil Process Code, adopts the next:
The Courtroom of Enchantment, so as to verify the choice of the registry court docket appealed earlier than it, by which the entry of the spiritual establishment “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-style Church” within the register beneath Artwork. 18 of the Regulation on Religions, has set forth issues based mostly on the final constitutional regulation contained in Articles 13 and 37 of the Structure of the Republic of Bulgaria on freedom of faith and on the inviolability of this precept, in addition to on the boundaries of the train of this proper, outlined by the prohibition on the usage of spiritual communities and establishments and spiritual beliefs for political functions (Article 13, paragraph 4 of the Structure), in addition to in opposition to nationwide safety, public order, public well being and morality or in opposition to the rights and freedoms of different residents.
He additionally analyzed the particular legislative framework contained within the Regulation on Non secular Denominations, evaluating the authorized definitions contained in §1, objects 1, 2 and three of the PZR of the regulation, respectively, of the final idea of faith as a set of spiritual beliefs and rules, the spiritual neighborhood and its spiritual establishment, in addition to the ideas of spiritual neighborhood and spiritual establishment, in reference to Artwork. 5 and Artwork. 6 of the regulation. Primarily based on this, he concluded that each particular person is free to profess and observe any spiritual perception, no matter whether or not it’s registered or acknowledged by the state, so long as it doesn’t violate the restrictions beneath Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the CRB. He identified that beneath the identical situations, a spiritual perception may additionally be professed and practiced by a bunch of people, with out the necessity for this spiritual neighborhood to register as a spiritual establishment, and that the registration by which it acquires the standing of a authorized entity is conditioned by compliance with the minimal necessities established within the Regulation on Non secular Denominations, together with relating to its identify (in view of the prohibition beneath Article 15, Paragraph 2, that it repeats that of an already registered one), in addition to relating to the compliance of the content material of the statute adopted on the constituent meeting with the necessities of Article 17 of the regulation. He discovered the appellant’s criticism that an knowledgeable opinion of the Directorate of Non secular Denominations of the Council of Ministers and the opinion of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church-Bulgarian Orthodox Church connected to it had been accepted as proof within the registration proceedings to be unfounded, on the grounds that the norm of Article 16 of the Regulation on Non secular Denominations expressly supplies for the likelihood for the court docket to request such an opinion in reference to the registration of spiritual communities. It accepted that the regulation didn’t prohibit the existence of multiple exponent of the Jap Orthodox religion, and that the court docket of first occasion had not denied this risk, however had indicated the required details establishing recognition by different native Orthodox church buildings beneath canon regulation, proof of which the applicant had not introduced. Subsequent, the appellate court docket set out issues in reference to compliance with the necessities of Article 17 of the Regulation on Denominations with regard to the statute of the spiritual establishment submitted to the registration court docket, holding that it didn’t represent legitimate proof within the case, because it was not signed and never licensed, and that it didn’t include knowledge on when and by whom it was adopted. In reference to the requisites of the content material of the statute prescribed by the identical provision, he indicated that it lacks a sign of the seat of the spiritual establishment utilized for registration and a particular and clear assertion of the liturgical observe, with which he additional justified the ultimate end result – affirmation of the choice of the registration court docket, which refused registration.
On the related authorized subject:
Interpretation of Artwork. 13, paras. 1 and a couple of and Artwork. 37 of the Structure in reference to the relationships between spiritual communities and establishments, on the one hand, and the state, on the opposite, within the implementation of the constitutionally proclaimed proper to faith was made by choice No. 5 of 11.07.1992 beneath case quantity No. 11/1992 of the Constitutional Courtroom of the Republic of Bulgaria. Primarily based on the evaluation of the aforementioned texts, the Constitutional Courtroom has accepted that the best to faith, in addition to the rights of thought and perception, is a fully elementary private proper, immediately associated to the intimate religious peace of the human individual, and subsequently represents a worth of the best order, which determines not solely the doable powers in its train, but additionally outlines the general authorized regime governing this sphere.
He identified that the best to faith encompasses the next extra essential powers: the best to freely select one’s faith and the opportunity of freely exercising one’s faith by the press, speech, by the creation of spiritual communities and associations, their actions throughout the neighborhood and out of doors it as manifestations of society. He defined that the spiritual neighborhood consists of all individuals who profess a standard spiritual perception, and spiritual establishments are the weather of the organizational type and construction by which the related neighborhood carries out its actions throughout the neighborhood and out of doors it – in society. He identified that the best to faith is a fully private, inviolable elementary human proper, which, nevertheless, will not be limitless from the perspective of its precise train, however he emphasised that the boundaries for this are strictly and comprehensively established within the Structure and it’s inadmissible to broaden them both by regulation or by interpretation. The position of the state in relation to the best to spiritual perception and the communities and establishments by which it’s exercised is defined by the use of interpretation, stating that the state is obliged to make sure situations for the free and unhindered train of the non-public proper to spiritual perception of each Bulgarian citizen in each respect. It’s accepted that the state, by its our bodies and establishments, can not intervene and administer the interior organizational life of spiritual communities and establishments, and the rights of the state to intervene within the actions of spiritual communities and establishments are restricted to taking the required measures solely and completely in circumstances the place the hypotheses of Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the Structure are current, and such an evaluation can be made within the occasion of registration of church communities or establishments.
For these causes, the Constitutional Courtroom has accepted that the best to faith can’t be restricted in any manner besides within the circumstances of Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the Structure, particularly when spiritual communities and establishments are used for political functions or when freedom of conscience and faith is directed in opposition to nationwide safety, public order, public well being and morality or in opposition to the rights and freedoms of different residents. It has accepted that the required restrictive grounds are exhaustively listed and can’t be expanded or supplemented by regulation or by interpretation, and solely the precise mechanisms for his or her implementation will be decided by regulation. It has accepted that spiritual communities and establishments are separated from the state and state interference and state administration of the interior organizational life of spiritual communities and establishments, in addition to their public manifestation, is inadmissible, besides within the circumstances already talked about in Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the Structure.
The interpretation given by the Constitutional Courtroom requires a conclusion that in view of the precept of the secular state, when ruling on a request for registration of a spiritual establishment, the court docket referred to can not keep in mind canon regulation, however ought to assess the existence of the stipulations offered for within the present constructive regulation (the Structure of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Regulation on Religions). The current panel, considering the explanations for the attraction choice, finds that with regard to the related authorized subject on which cassation management is allowed, the permission given by the attraction court docket is in contradiction with the interpretation of the provisions of Artwork. 13 and Artwork. 37 of the Structure adopted in Determination No. 5 of 11.07.1992 beneath Case No. 11/1992 of the Constitutional Courtroom. Opposite to the Constitutional Courtroom’s acceptance that the restrictive grounds laid out in Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the Structure are exhaustively listed and can’t be expanded or supplemented by regulation or by interpretation, the Courtroom of Enchantment, sharing the opinion of the court docket of first occasion, took into consideration the presence of proof establishing recognition of the spiritual neighborhood by different native Orthodox church buildings beneath canon regulation as a prerequisite for granting the requested entry.
On the deserves of the cassation attraction:
The minutes of the founding meeting of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church” of 13.06.2022 introduced within the case set up that on the required date the 4 founders current decided to ascertain a spiritual denomination with the required identify and with headquarters in [settlement], Buxton district, [street] for the adoption of its statutes, in addition to for the election of its governing our bodies. The introduced statutes meet the necessities of Artwork. 17 of the Denominations Act, together with, opposite to the conclusion of the appellate court docket, containing the identify and headquarters of the spiritual denomination – “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church” with headquarters in [settlement] /Artwork. 1/, in addition to a press release of spiritual perception /Artwork. 2/ and liturgical observe /Artwork. 8/ of the statutes. In reference to the evaluation of compliance with the requirement of Artwork. 17, merchandise 2 of the Non secular Act, it must be famous that the statute doesn’t must include an in depth assertion of the textual content of the companies themselves and the calendar of holidays, and on this case the reference made in Artwork. 8 to the “Jerusalem liturgical statute and the patristic eortology (church calendar) in its genuine type for each the movable holidays associated to the Orthodox Paschalia and the Menaion cycle of the immovable holidays”, and indicating the locations of the companies, is enough.
A notification letter from the “Info Service” was additionally submitted relating to the distinctiveness of the identify “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church”.
The current panel, considering the proof introduced, finds that the necessities offered for within the Regulation on Religions for registering the spiritual establishment with the identify “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church” are met. On this case, the restrictions on the best to faith beneath Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the Structure and Artwork. 7, para. 1 and para. 2 of the Non secular Freedom Act, associated to public/nationwide safety, public order, well being, morality or the rights and freedoms of different individuals and to the usage of spiritual communities and establishments for political functions, and upon evaluation of proportionality – if they’re obligatory in a democratic society (Artwork. 9 together with Artwork. 11 of the CPRHR), that are exhaustively regulated within the present constructive regulation, will not be current. The statute adopted by the founders meets the content material necessities offered for in Artwork. 17 of the Non secular Freedom Act. The situation of Artwork. 15, para. 2 of the Non secular Freedom Act that the identify of the spiritual neighborhood mustn’t repeat the identify of an already registered spiritual establishment can be met. The phrase “old-style” included within the identify sufficiently distinguishes the newly established spiritual establishment, and in addition expresses the variations of the spiritual neighborhood with regard to spiritual holidays, the observance of which, in keeping with Artwork. 6, para. 1, merchandise 9 of the Non secular Act, is included in the best to faith.
There’s additionally no impediment to the requested registration arising from Artwork. 13, para. 3 of the Structure and Artwork. 10, paras. 1 and para. 2 of the Non secular Act, which offer that the normal faith within the Republic of Bulgaria is Jap Orthodoxy and its exponent is the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”, which is a authorized entity by advantage of the regulation. As adopted in choice No. 12 of 15.07.2003. beneath case quantity No. 3/2003. of the Constitutional Courtroom, the popularity of the standing of a authorized entity of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” doesn’t violate the best of individuals to freely affiliate – each that of Jap Orthodox Christians and of non-Orthodox Christians and those that profess one other religion, with solely a distinction being offered for by way of the situation and process for buying authorized persona, with out affecting both the liberty of selection of faith or the best to train it in neighborhood.
The conclusion of the appellate court docket that the absence of proof establishing recognition of the spiritual neighborhood by different native Orthodox church buildings beneath canon regulation constitutes grounds for refusing to register additionally it is incorrect. This conclusion contradicts the choice No. 5 of 11.07.1992 beneath case quantity No. 11/1992. of the Constitutional Courtroom interpretation that outdoors the circumstances of Artwork. 13, para. 4 and Artwork. 37, para. 2 of the Structure, that are exhaustively listed and can’t be expanded or supplemented by regulation or by interpretation, the state can not prohibit the best to faith and can’t intervene within the inner organizational life of spiritual communities and establishments, in addition to of their public manifestation. On the similar time, within the causes for choice No. 12 of 15.07.2003. beneath case No. 3/2003. of the Constitutional Courtroom it’s said that the availability of Artwork. 10, para. 1 of the Structure displays the normal character of the Jap Orthodox faith proclaimed in Artwork. 13, para. 3 of the Structure and usually identified historic details associated to the primary options of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church”, with which it identifies itself. The explanations for the choice result in the conclusion that from the aforementioned provisions, confirming the standing of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”, it can’t be deduced that its recognition by the BOC is a situation for the registration of one other Jap Orthodox spiritual establishment – BP and the opposite native Jap Orthodox church buildings.
This conclusion can be supported by the availability of Artwork. 10, Para. 3 of the Regulation on Non secular Affairs, in keeping with which Para. 1 and Para. 2 can’t be grounds for granting privileges or any benefits by regulation.
The conclusion that the stipulations for registration of the spiritual establishment are current additionally corresponds to Artwork. 9 and Artwork. 11 of the Conference on the Rights of the Youngster, in addition to to the choice of 20.04.2021 of the ECHR within the case “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church and Others v. Bulgaria” (software 56751/2013), issued on the event of a earlier refusal to register the identical spiritual establishment, which discovered a violation of Artwork. 9 together with Artwork. 11 of the Conference on the Rights of the Youngster. This choice accepted that it issues a small Orthodox neighborhood of “old-style” believers, who will not be a part of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” on account of doctrinal variations – relating to the calendar relevant to the companies of fastened holidays (non-adoption of the brand new Julian calendar), with out having a proper reference to the construction, nor claims to the property of this church. It was explicitly emphasised that the state, represented by the court docket, should stay impartial and neutral in exercising its regulatory powers and in its relations with completely different religions, which might be achieved by registration. This choice and the interpretation given therein of the provisions of the Code of Civil Process must be taken into consideration within the current proceedings, initiated on a brand new software for registration of the spiritual establishment, insofar because the process regulated in Artwork. 303, para. 1, merchandise 7 of the Civil Process Code is inapplicable with respect to the choice issued within the earlier registration proceedings.
The choice of the ECHR will not be in contradiction with the constitutional traditions present within the nation, the accepted values and desires of society. There aren’t any goal circumstances on the idea of which it may be assumed that the registration of the cassationist would have an effect on the rights of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” and its members. It’s indeniable that this spiritual establishment, having existed for hundreds of years, has participated within the strengthening of the Bulgarian nationwide spirit and statehood, that it at the moment unites the vast majority of Orthodox Christians within the nation, that it’s united, authoritative and enjoys the distinctive respect of the establishments and society. On the similar time, the requested registration is for a small spiritual neighborhood that has existed for 30 years and has no claims to the interior group and property of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”.
For the explanations said, the current panel finds that the appealed appellate choice is wrong and must be annulled, and a choice must be issued permitting the requested registration.
Thus motivated, the Supreme Courtroom of Cassation, Industrial Chamber, on the idea of Artwork. 293, para. 1 in reference to para. 2 of the Civil Process Code
DECIDES:
CANCELS choice No. 2 of 07.02.2023 on attraction No. 5/2022 of the Sofia Courtroom of Enchantment, which confirmed choice No. 65 of 01.11.2022 on attraction No. 25/22 on the stock of the Sofia Metropolis Courtroom, TO, which refused entry within the public register beneath Artwork. 18 of the Regulation on Non secular Denominations on the Courtroom of a spiritual establishment with the identify “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church”, established at a founding council on 13.06.2022, as a substitute of which DECIDES:
ENTRIES within the register of spiritual denominations on the Sofia Metropolis Courtroom a spiritual establishment with the identify “Bulgarian Orthodox Outdated-Model Church”;
Headquarters and administration handle: [settlement], [neighborhood], [street];
Governing our bodies: Primate; Synod of Bishops; Church Council; Church Courtroom;
Primate: His Holiness Metropolitan F. D. S. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN]
Synod of Bishops: His Holiness Metropolitan F. D. S. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN], Bishop of Sozopol S. (B. Ch. O.) with Private Identification Quantity [PIN], momentary member – Archbishop of Moldova and Chisinau G. (V. Ok.), citizen of Ukraine, with passport FE427792, issued on 26.04.2016 by the Ministry of Inner Affairs of Ukraine;
Church Council: Bishop of Sozopol S. (B. Ch. O.) with Private Identification Quantity [PIN], Priest Ok. H. D. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN], Priest I. Ok. M. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN], S. T. T. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN], I. N. G. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN] – secretary.
The spiritual establishment is represented by T. Metropolitan F. D. S. with Private Identification Quantity [PIN] – head.
The choice is ultimate and topic to registration.
CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:
