Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journals Hudi 12 11-12 Article-P919-Preview
Journals Hudi 12 11-12 Article-P919-Preview
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.
Not being recognised by the State, the church did not have the right of access to a court to defend
its rights and protect its property, given that only denominations recognised by the State enjoyed legal
protection.
. Principal facts
The case concerns an application lodged by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia
(Mitropolia Basarabiei ¸si Exarhatul Plaiurilor) and eleven Moldovan nationals, Mr
Petru Paduraru, Mr Petru Buburuz, Mr Ioan Esanu, ¸ Mr Victor Rusu, Mr Anatol
Goncear, Mr Valeriu Cernei, Mr Gheorghe Ionita, Mr Valeriu Matciac, Mr Vlad
Cubreacov, Mr Anatol Telembici and Mr Alexandru Magola. Some of the appli-
[]
¸
cants live in Chisinau; the others live in various other Moldovan towns. The appli-
cants 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 December 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.