Новости от 21 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Ali Çetin / Türkiye davasında 20 Haziran 2017 tarihli AİHM kararı (şikayet no 30905/09).
2009 yılında başvurucu şikayetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.
Söz konusu davada, iki idari makamlara gönderilen mektupta, vergi müfettişinin hakaret ve küçümseyici hallerde suç duyurusunda bulunulmasına ilişkin şikayet başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 10. maddesinin şartlarının ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.
OLAYIN DURUMU
Başvuran sanki hareket ettiği, o başvuranın alınmasına neden rapor hazırladı vergi müfettişi suçladığı, (o idari itiraz koymak mektubun kopyasını) çalıştı Fonu mektuplar göndermek için ceza muhakemesinde mahkum edilmişti ona karşı bir "fetva" yayınladı ve dolaylı Türk edebiyatının kurgusal karakteri ile müfettiş karşılaştıran. Fetva - Müslüman ülkelerde, bir eylem veya olay Kur'an ve şeriat uygunluğunun kararında (müftü) en yüksek dini otorite.
HUKUK SORUNLARI
Tartışmalı mahkumiyeti ifade özgürlüğü kanunla öngörüldüğünü hakkının başvuranın egzersiz ile müdahale teşkil ve başkalarının şöhret ve haklarının korunması yönündeki meşru amaca. Onun idari şikayete bağlı ifadeler mektubu itibaren, başvuru sahibinin kendi kişisel görüşünü ifade arayışı açıktı. Bu nedenle ifadeleri, gerçeğe ilişkin ifadelere kıyasla değer yargılarına daha yakındı.
Bekleyen comments genel çıkarları ilgilendiren konularda açık bir tartışma bağlamında yapılmış, ancak başvuru doğrudan ve inkar edilemez zarar neden devlet memuru olarak görev yapan bir müfettiş tarafından derlenen bir rapora yanıt olarak yapılan kritik açıklamalar vardı değildi, görevden ifade. Onun şikayeti, başvuru sahibi onun görüşüne göre, kariyerine zarar verebilir, raporun bazı parçaları kaldırılmasını talep etti. O Türk edebiyatının kurgusal karakterin anlayışıyla raporun yazarının zihin karşılaştırıldı. başvuranın mahkûmiyeti müfettiş, saldırgan olduğu tespit edildi terimleri tanımlamak için kullanılan terimlere dayalı edildi ve nitpicking ziyade o müfettiş ile ilgili olarak dile getirmiştir profesyonel doğa, kritik görünümleri gibi görülebilir.
Ancak, tartışmalı yorumlar profesyonel başvuru için büyük sıkıntı kaynağı raporu, zorlu şikayete bağlı bir mektupta yapılmıştır. Böylece onlar halk için, ama sadece ülkenin yetkili makamlarına yönelik değildi. onlar dağıtıldı hangi ihtilaflı açıklamalar ve bağlam doğasını göz önüne alındığında, zemin başvuranın mahkumiyeti, davalı devletin makamları tarafından dayanıyordu "ilgili ve yeterli" olarak kabul edilemez.
(Yaklaşık 195 avro para cezası yerine yedi günlük hapis) Başvuru dayatılan yaptırımlar, ifade özgürlüğüne başvuru sahibinin hakkı ile müdahalenin ölçüsü olmasına rağmen, ceza hukuku bakımından bir ceza, yine de vardır.
Böylece, başvuranın mahkumiyeti "demokratik bir toplumda gerekli" değildi ifade özgürlüğü hakkına sahip orantısız müdahale oldu.
KARAR
Sözleşmesi (oybirliğiyle) 10. maddesinin ihlal durumunda.
TAZMİNAT
Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. maddi ve manevi zarar tazminat talepleri reddedildi.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/416-ali-etin-t-rkiye .
ECHR ruling of June 20, 2017 in the case of Ali Cetin v. Turkey (application No. 30905/09).
In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, the complaint on bringing to criminal responsibility for mentions of the tax inspector in insulting and derogatory form in a letter sent to two administrative bodies was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was convicted for sending a letter to the fund where he worked (he attached a copy of the letter to the administrative complaint), in which he accused the tax inspector who compiled the report, which led to the applicant's dismissal, that he acted as if issued a "fatwa" against him, and indirectly compared the inspector to the fictional character of Turkish literature. Fatwa - in Muslim countries the decision of the highest religious authority (mufti) on the correspondence of a particular action or phenomenon to the Koran and Sharia.
ISSUES OF LAW
The contentious conviction constituted an interference with the applicant's exercise of his right to freedom of expression, was provided for by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. From the wording of the letter appended to his administrative complaint, it was clear that the applicant sought to express his personal opinion. His statements were therefore closer to value judgments than to statements about the fact.
The comments in question were not made in the framework of an open discussion on issues of general interest, but were critical remarks made in response to a report compiled by an inspector who acted as a civil servant who caused direct and undoubted harm to the applicant, expressed in his dismissal. In his complaint, the applicant asked for the removal of certain fragments of the report, which, in his opinion, could have harmed his career. He compared the mentality of the author of the report with the mind-set of the fictional character of Turkish literature. The applicant's conviction was based on the terms he used to describe the inspector, terms that were found offensive and could be perceived as nagging, rather than critical professional opinions that he expressed with regard to the inspector.
However, the controversial comments were made in a letter attached to the complaint about the challenge of the report, which caused serious professional troubles for the applicant. Thus, they were not intended for the general public, but only for the competent authorities of the country. Given the nature of the controversial observations and the context in which they were distributed, the grounds relied on by the authorities of the respondent State in the applicant's conviction can not be regarded as "relevant and sufficient".
Although the sanction applied to the applicant (a seven-day deprivation of liberty replaced by a fine of about 195 euros) was a proportional interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, it was nonetheless punishable in terms of criminal law.
Thus, the applicant's conviction was a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression, which was not "necessary in a democratic society".
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. Claims for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage were rejected.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/417-ali-cetin-v-turkey .
ECHR Ordúnas an 15 Meitheamh, 2017 i gcás na gCuideachtaí Neamhspleácha Neamhspleácha (Éire) i gCuideachta in aghaidh na hÉireann "(gearán Uimh. 28199/15).
In 2015, tugadh cúnamh don iarratasóir an gearán a ullmhú. Ina dhiaidh sin, cuireadh an gearán in iúl d'Éirinn.
Sa chás, rinneadh breithniú rathúil ar an ngearán maidir le easpa ráthaíochtaí leordhóthanacha agus éifeachtacha maidir le cúiteamh i leith damáistí, a bronnadh ar an oireann éadaigh. Bhí sárú ar cheanglais Airteagal 10 den Choinbhinsiún chun Cearta an Duine agus Saoirsí Bunúsacha a Chosaint sa chás.
IARSCRÍBHINN AN CÁS
D'fhreagair an sainchomhairleoir caidrimh phoiblí L. an chuideachta iarrthóra, a d'fhoilsigh an nuachtán Evening Herald, le linn na tréimhse a bhain leis an gcás. D'achomharc L. chuig an gcúirt tar éis sraith alt a cháineadh a cáilíochtaí gnó agus morálta i ndáil le conarthaí stáit a dhámhachtain. Thug L. gníomhaíocht in imeachtaí sibhialta i gcoinne an chuideachta iarrthóra i ndáil le clúmhilleadh, agus chinn an giúiré ina bhfabhar. Maidir leis an tsaincheist cúitimh i leith damáistí breitheamh na trialach, thug an giúiré slán i gcomhréir le rialacha Barrett, atá curtha ar bun ag an gCúirt Uachtarach i 1986 (cás "Barrett i gcoinne na cuideachta" nyuspeypers Independent Teoranta "(Barrett v. Independent Newspapers Limited), 1986, IR13 ). ní raibh sé a thabhairt treoracha sonracha a thugann giúiré ar leibhéal cuí cúitimh, béim ar sé an nádúr teoranta an treoir go bhféadfadh sé a thabhairt, agus dúirt sé i dtéarmaí ginearálta go bhfuil i damáistí á measúnú ní mór don ghiúiré a chur san áireamh ar an situa fíor Iúr, an t-am atá ann faoi láthair, an costas maireachtála agus luach ar airgead. Rabhadh sé na baill an ghiúiré nár chóir iad a "defeated ag mothú fhlaithiúlacht." Comhaltaí an ghiúiré measúnú ar na damáistí i méid de € 1,872,000. Ar achomharc, chealaigh an Chúirt Uachtarach an íocaíocht mar iomarcach agus curtha i bhfeidhm meastachán caillteanais féin de € 1,250,000.
Sna himeachtaí Choinbhinsiúin, an chuideachta is iarratasóir gearán go é a ghnóthú ón raibh an cúiteamh iomarcach agus thaispeáin easpa cosaintí leordhóthanacha agus éifeachtacha sa tír ceart shárú ar a ceart chun saoirse tuairimí a nochtadh faoi Airteagal 10 den Choinbhinsiún.
CEISTEANNA AN DLÍ
Cúiteamh a ghnóthú i leith damáistí do na cuideachtaí iarrthacha comhdhéanta do chur chun feidhme a ceart chun tuairimí a srianta cainte, agus go raibh forordaithe an cur isteach de réir dlí agus saothrú mar aidhm a chosaint ar an dea-cháil agus an ceart ómóis don saol príobháideach agus teaghlaigh de L. Maidir leis an cheist i dtaobh an bhféadfaí an cur isteach a chur san áireamh "riachtanach i sochaí dhaonlathach", an Chúirt, tar éis a chur chuige sa "Nuacht Neamhspleách agus na meáin", mheas ar leordhóthanacht agus éifeachtúlacht na n-imthosca an cháis, na cuideachtaí iarrthacha a ráthaíochtaí stáit i gcoinne pionóis neamhréire. Tugann an Chúirt ina leith sin a bhí le feiceáil ar an damáistí unpredictably ard i gcásanna libel mar bhealach go mbeidh éifeacht bhactha, rud a éilíonn monatóireacht an-chúramach, agus fírinniú an-weighty. Éifeachtacht nó neamhéifeachtúlacht an ráthaíochtaí an gcéad dul síos, an méid iomlán an toisc nach féidir cúiteamh cailleadh, a bhí ní hamháin léiriú ar na fíricí ar leith gach cáis, costais agus moilleanna suntasacha ba chúis leis an achomharc agus, i gcás ar ceal chásanna athbhreithnithe cúitimh raibh cúinsí inchurtha i leith.
(i) Is é an chéad ráthaíocht ná scaradh an ghiúiré. Ar an gcéad dul, ghlac an bhfoirm ráthaíocht scaradh an ghiúiré i dtaobh conas a mheas an méid an chúitimh damáiste a bheidh le bronnadh. Meabhraíonn an Chúirt gur i gcomhthéacs na gcásanna clúmhillte, cé go bhfuil an measúnú cúitimh do caillteanais a tugadh ar ghiúiré a bheith go bunúsach deacair agus neamhchinnte, ba cheart neamhchinnteacht a íosmhéadú, agus nádúr, an soiléireacht agus toirt na teagaisc a bheidh tugtha, a thug an giúiré, bhí an eochair maidir leis seo. I gcás cuideachta-iarratasóir bhreitheamh na trialach, bhí orm a bheith ag gníomhú, na teorainneacha dochta atá leagtha síos ag an gcásdlí na Cúirte Uachtaraí ag cur san áireamh. Mar thoradh air sin, d'fhéach sé go leor coitianta. Cé nach féidir linn a rá go raibh an rogha an ghiúiré gan teorainn, ní dhéanann an Chúirt a mheas go raibh an slán de chineál a threorú go hiontaofa ar an giúiré measúnú na ndamáistí, ag cur san áireamh gaolmhaireacht réasúnach na comhréireachta leis an dochar a dhéantar don dea-cháil agus an saol príobháideach agus teaghlaigh de L. Mar thoradh air sin, mar seo a leanas ón tráth a dtabharfar an Chúirt Uachtarach go, ba é an cúiteamh a dhámh an giúiré iomarcach agus míchuí, bhí an chéad ráthaíocht neamhéifeachtach.
(ii) Is é an dara ráthaíocht ná athbhreithniú ar an nós imeachta achomhairc. Thiontaigh an Chúirt Uachtarach cinneadh na hArd-Chúirte maidir leis an cúiteamh ar chaillteanais agus, ar a laghad, a mhéid sin, ba é an t-achomharc ráthaíocht éifeachtach. Ach níos déanaí, chuir an Chúirt Uachtarach teip ar an bhfíric go ndearna sé féin dámhachtain cúitimh. Ba é méid an cúiteamh níos airde ná aon mhéid arna dhámhachtain riamh ag an giúiré nó an Chúirt Achomhairc, agus bhí sé i bhfad níos airde ná an méid an chinnidh a bhronnadh daingnithe nó a chealú an Chúirt Uachtarach roimhe. Dar leis an gCúirt, tá sé go leor dlisteanacha, ach a bhfuil an nádúr eisceachtúil de chur i bhfeidhm na Cúirte Uachtaraí a chumhachtaí a chur in ionad an meastóireacht féin-mheasúnú ar an gcaillteanas arna dtáirgeadh ag an giúiré, mar aon leis an chineál eisceachtúil ar an méid dámhachtana deiridh ó thaobh cleachtais baile, béim ar an ngá atá le staidéar cuimsitheach, Míniúcháin bronnadh ar deireadh méid. Mar sin féin, cé go a ghearrann a mhéid nach raibh go hiomlán gan údar, mhínigh an Chúirt Uachtarach, de bhreis ar an ath-scaipeadh ar na prionsabail a bhaineann le Barrett, a bhí mar bhunús le scaradh an giúiré, agus a chur i gcomparáid leis an gcás roimhe sin clúmhilleadh, tháinig sé ar an tuairim go bhfuil an dámhachtain de € 1.25 milliún. Lena chois sin, in ainneoin na áirithintí tromchúiseach in iúl ag breitheamh taithí ag déileáil leis an ní maidir leis na srianta a eascróidh as cásdlí na Cúirte Uachtaraí a bhaineann leis na teagaisc a bheidh tugtha, lena bhféadfadh sé achomharc a dhéanamh chuig an giúiré, an breitheamh ní raibh aghaidh a thabhairt ar neamhéifeachtacht sa chás seo go príomhchosaintí i gcoinne pionóis neamhréireacha.
An Chúirt Mheabhraigh in chonclúid nach raibh an cás seo an rogha na n-údarás na nósanna imeachta freagróra Stáit don bhreitheamh a chuala an cás, agus an giúiré, ach cineál agus méid na treorach ba chóir a thabhairt don ghiúiré ag an mbreitheamh an cás á mheá go treoir a thabhairt dóibh measúnú a dhéanamh ar caillteanas agus a chosaint i gcoinne pionóis díréireach i gcás an chúirt meastachán achomhairc athbhreithnithe ar chúiseanna ábhartha agus leordhóthanach don méid a dámhadh sa tuairisceán.
DECISION
Sa chás go raibh sárú ar riachtanais Airteagal 10 den Choinbhinsiún (arna nglacadh d'aon toil).
CUNTAS
I gcur i bhfeidhm Airteagal 41 den Choinbhinsiún. Ceanglais maidir le cúitimh i leith damáistí ábhar agus mhorálta a diúltaíodh mar nach féidir leis an gCúirt a bheith boinn tuisceana maidir le toradh na n-imeachtaí in éagmais na sáruithe.
Foinse an fhoilseacháin: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/418-gcuideachta-neamhsple-cha-neamhsple-cha-ire-i-gcuideachta-in-aghaidh-na-h-ireann .
ECHR Ordinance of June 15, 2017 in the Independent Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited Company case against Ireland "( application No. 28199/15).
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Ireland.
In the case, the complaint on the lack of adequate and effective guarantees in respect of compensation for damages, awarded on the libel suit, was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The public relations consultant L. sued the applicant company, which, during the period relevant to the case, published the newspaper Evening Herald. L. appealed to the court after a series of articles criticizing her business and moral qualities in connection with the award of state contracts. L. brought an action in civil proceedings against the applicant company in connection with defamation, and the jury decided in her favor. On the issue of compensation for damages, the judge who considered the case gave the jury's advice to the jury in accordance with Barrett's rules, which were established by the Supreme Court in 1986 (Barrett v. Independent Newspapers Limited, 1986, IR13 ) He did not give specific instructions to the jury about the appropriate level of compensation, stressed the limited nature of the instructions that he could give, and noted in general terms that when assessing the jury's losses the jury must take into account the actual situation the current time, the cost of living, and the value of money. "He warned jury members that they should not be" defeated by a sense of generosity. "The jury members assessed damages amounting to 1,872,000 euros .In appeal, the Supreme Court overturned compensation as excessive and carried out own loss estimate of € 1,250,000.
In the conventional proceedings, the applicant company complained that the compensation recovered from it was excessive and demonstrated the lack of adequate and effective guarantees in the country's law in violation of its right to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention.
ISSUES OF LAW
The recovery of damages from the applicant company constituted a restriction on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and this interference was provided for by law and was intended to protect the reputation and the right to respect for private and family life. With regard to the question of whether the interference could be considered "necessary in a democratic society", the Court, following its approach in the Independent News and Media case, considered the adequacy and effectiveness in the circumstances of the applicant company's case state guarantees against disproportionate penalties. The Court noted in this connection that unpredictably high compensation for damages in defamation cases was seen as a way to exert a deterrent effect, and thus required the most careful monitoring and very weighty justification. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of guarantees in the first instance, the resulting unpredictability of the amount of compensation for losses, which was not solely a reflection of the unique facts of each case, significant costs and delays caused by the appeal, and, in case of cancellation of compensation, by reviewing the case were relevant considerations.
(i) The first guarantee is the parting of the jury. In the first instance, this guarantee took the form of a jury's jury's advice on how to assess the amount of compensation for damage to be awarded. The Court recalls that in the context of defamation cases, although the assessment of compensation for damages carried out by a jury can be inherently complex and uncertain, the uncertainty must be minimized, and the nature, clarity, and volume of the jury's keynote speeches were key in this respect. In the case of the applicant company, the judge in charge of the case had to act in the light of the strict limitations established by the case-law of the Supreme Court. As a result, his parting words turned out to be quite common. Although it can not be said that the jury's discretion was unrestricted, the Court does not believe that this farewell speech was such as to reliably guide the jury in assessing losses in the light of a reasonable ratio of proportionality to harm done to reputation and personal and family life. as follows from the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the compensation awarded to the jury was excessive and disproportionate, the first guarantee was ineffective.
(ii) The second guarantee is a review of the appellate procedure. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court for compensation of losses and, at least to this extent, the appellate guarantee was effective. However, later the Supreme Court confined itself to the fact that he himself carried out the award of compensation. The amount of this compensation was higher than any amount ever awarded by a jury or by an appellate court, and was much higher than the amounts previously decided or revoked by the Supreme Court. In the Court's opinion, the legitimate but exclusive exercise by the Supreme Court of its authority to replace its own assessment of damages with the assessment made by the jury, coupled with the exceptional nature of the final award in terms of domestic practice, pointed to the need for a comprehensive justification for clarifying the award amount. However, although the amount claimed was not completely unmotivated, the Supreme Court did not explain, in addition to reiterating the principles of Barrett, which served as the basis for the jury's jury, and comparison with the previous case of defamation, how he came to the conclusion that he would award € 1,250,000. In addition, despite the serious reservations expressed by the experienced judge who examined the case, regarding the limitations stemming from the Supreme Court's case-law regarding parting words with which he could apply to the jury, the judge did not address the issue of ineffectiveness in the present case of this key guarantee against disproportionate penalties.
The Court stressed in conclusion that the subject matter of the present case was not the choice by the authorities of the respondent State of the procedure for the judge who examined the case and the jury, but rather the nature and scope of the instructions to be given by the jury of the judge examining the case to guide them in assessing losses and protect against disproportionate penalties and, if the appellate court implements a new assessment, the relevant and sufficient reasons for the amount awarded in return.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. Claims for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage are rejected, since the Court can not be worth assumptions about the outcome of the proceedings in the absence of a violation.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/419-independent-independent-newspapers-ireland-limited-company-case-against-ireland .
Решение на ЕСПЧ от 15 юни 2017 г. по делото Методиев и други срещу България (жалба № 58088/08).
През 2008 г. жалбоподателите са били подпомогнати при подготовката на жалбата. Впоследствие жалбата е съобщена в България.
В случая жалбоподателите успешно се оплакват от отказа си да регистрират религиозната асоциация поради липсата на точно описание на нейните вярвания и ритуали в нейната харта. В случая е налице нарушение на изискванията на член 9 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛСТВА ПО ДЕЛОТО
През февруари 2007 г. 10 души, които бяха мюсюлмани от Ахмади, включително девет от 31-те кандидати, решиха да създадат нова религиозна асоциация, наречена мюсюлманска общност на Ахмадия. Първият жалбоподател подава молба до окръжния съд за регистрация на нова религиозна асоциация във връзка със Закона за вероизповеданията. Той придаде на Хартата на асоциацията очертание на целите и вярванията си. Въпреки това, вътрешните съдилища отхвърлиха молбата на основание, че не е имало конкретно изявление за вярванията и обредите на сдружението.
ПРОБЛЕМИ НА ЗАКОНА
Член 9 от Конвенцията в светлината на член 11 от Конвенцията. Във връзка с избягване на окръжния съд в своя регистър, религиозен сдружение не може да придобие способността да се действа и да упражнява правата, свързани със статута си на свое име, като например правото да притежават или наемат имот, задръжте банкови сметки или да инициира съдебно производство, правата на които все още са по-малко, са от съществено значение за изповядването на нейната религия. По този начин отказът да се регистрира сдружение по Закона за вероизповеданията представлява намеса в правата, гарантирани от член 9 от Конвенцията, тълкуван в светлината на член 11 от Конвенцията. Интервенцията е "предписана от закона" и преследва законните цели за защита на обществения ред и на правата и свободите на другите.
Единственото основание, на което цитира Върховен касационен съд, отхвърли жалбата е липсата на достатъчно точен и ясен знак на вярвания и практики Ахмадия вяра в устава. Той заключи, че хартата не отговаря на изискванията на съответните разпоредби на Закона за вероизповеданията, които се стремяха да разграничат изповедите и да избягват конфронтацията между религиозните общности.
Името на религиозното сдружение и в устава на дружеството ясно показват, че той принадлежи към общността Ахмадия, действайки в света, както и своя устав изложиха вярвания и основни ценности на своите последователи. Законът за вероизповеданията не установява конкретни разпоредби относно степента на точност на това описание или какъв вид информация трябва да бъде посочена в изявлението за вярвания и обреди. В същото време нямаше други правила или насоки за кандидатите, които да им помогнат в това отношение. По този начин жалбоподателите не са могли да гарантират, че тяхната харта спазва законодателството с точността, изисквана от българските съдилища. Освен това жалбоподателите нямаха възможност да коригират недостатъците, като предоставят допълнителна информация на компетентните съдилища.
Религиозната асоциация като условие за регистрация трябваше да докаже, че нейните вярвания се различаваха от вече регистрираните религии и по-специално от основната мюсюлманска вяра. Такъв подход, който се прилага стриктно, както в конкретния случай, на практика води до отказ да се регистрира всяка нова религиозна асоциация със същата доктрина като съществуващата изповед. Като се има предвид невъзможността за придобиване на статут на юридическо лице съгласно законодателството на Българската асоциация на извършване на религиозни дейности, в противен случай подходът на Върховния съд може да доведе до предположението за съществуването на само една религиозна асоциация за всеки от религиозно движение и полагането на всички последователи на задълженията да се присъединят към него. Освен това оценката на естеството на вярванията е въпрос на съдилищата, а не на самите религиозни общности.
Подобен подход е трудно да се съчетае със свободата на религията, предвидена в член 9 от Конвенцията, тълкувана в светлината на член 11 от Конвенцията. Правото на свобода на религията по принцип изключва всякаква оценка на легитимността на състоянието на религиозните вярвания или форми на изразяване на тези вярвания, дори ако целта е да се запази единството в религиозната общност. Предполагаемата липса на точност в убежденията на религиозната асоциация и ритуали в нейната харта не може да оправдае отричането на нейната регистрация, което съответно не беше необходимо в едно демократично общество.
РЕШЕНИЕ
Нарушението на изискванията на член 9 от Конвенцията (единодушно) е извършено по делото.
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
При прилагането на член 41 от Конвенцията. Съдът присъжда на първия жалбоподател 4000 евро обезщетение за неимуществени вреди, решавайки, че установяването на нарушение представлява само по себе си е достатъчно обезщетение за неимуществени вреди, причинени на другите кандидати.
Източник на публикация: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/420-metodiev-i-drugi-srschu-balgaria .
Decision of the ECtHR of 15 June 2017 in the case of Metodiev and Others v. Bulgaria (application No. 58088/08).
In 2008, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated in Bulgaria.
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the refusal to register the religious association due to the lack of an accurate description of its beliefs and rituals in its charter. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In February 2007, 10 people, who were Ahmadi Muslims, including nine of the 31 applicants, decided to create a new religious association called the Muslim community of Ahmadiyya. The first applicant applied to the district court for registration of a new religious association in conjunction with the Religions Act. He attached the charter of the association with an outline of its goals and beliefs. However, the domestic courts rejected the application on the grounds that there was no specific statement of the beliefs and rites of the association.
ISSUES OF LAW
Article 9 of the Convention in the light of article 11 of the Convention. In connection with the evasion of the district court from its registration, the religious association could not acquire legal capacity and exercise the rights associated with its status, on its own behalf, such as the right to own or rent property, have bank accounts or initiate legal proceedings, rights that, less, were essential for the purpose of professing her religion. Thus, the refusal to register an association under the Religions Act constituted an interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention. The intervention was "prescribed by law" and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
The only ground to which the Supreme Court of Cassation referred, rejecting the complaint, was the lack of a sufficiently precise and clear indication of the beliefs and rites of the Ahmadic faith in the association's charter. He concluded that the charter did not meet the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Religions Act, which sought to distinguish between confessions and avoid confrontation between religious communities.
The name of the religious association and its charter clearly indicated that it belongs to the community of Ahmadiyya, operating throughout the world, and its charter set out the beliefs and fundamental values of its followers. The Law on Religions does not establish specific provisions regarding the degree of accuracy of such a description or what kind of information should be indicated in the statement of beliefs and rites. At the same time, there were no other rules or guidelines available to applicants who could help them in this regard. Thus, the applicants could not ensure that their charter complied with the legislation with the accuracy required by the courts of Bulgaria. In addition, the applicants had no opportunity to correct the deficiencies by providing additional information to the competent courts.
The religious association as a condition of registration had to prove that its beliefs differed from already registered religions and, in particular, from the mainstream Muslim faith. Such an approach, with strict application, as in the present case, in practice, resulted in refusal to register any new religious association with the same doctrine as the existing confession. Given the impossibility of acquiring legal personality in accordance with the legislation of Bulgaria by the association carrying out religious activities, in other ways this approach of the supreme court could entail the existence of only one religious association for each religious movement and the imposition on all followers of the obligation to adhere to it. In addition, the assessment of the nature of beliefs was a matter for the courts, and not for the religious communities themselves.
Such an approach is difficult to reconcile with the freedom of religion provided for in article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of article 11 of the Convention. The right to freedom of religion in principle excludes any assessment by the state of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or expressions of these beliefs, even if the goal is to preserve unity in the religious community. The alleged lack of precision in the beliefs of the religious association and rituals in its charter could not justify the denial of its registration, which, accordingly, was not necessary in a democratic society.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the first applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, finding that the finding of a violation of the Convention was in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by other applicants.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/421-metodiev-and-others-v-bulgaria .
