Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208

June 2017

Metodiev and Others v. Bulgaria - 58088/08

Judgment 15.6.2017 [Section V]

Article 9

Article 9-1

Freedom of religion

Manifest religion or belief

Refusal to register religious association owing to lack of precise description of its beliefs
and rites in its statute: violation

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Refusal to register religious association owing to lack of precise description of its beliefs
and rites in its statute: violation

Facts – In February 2007 ten individuals who were Ahmadi Muslims, including nine of the
31 applicants, decided to set up a new religious association called the Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community.

The first applicant filed with the district court an application for the registration of the
new religious association in accordance with the Religions Act. He appended the
association’s constitution setting out its aims and beliefs. However, the national courts
denied the application on the ground that there was no specific statement of the
association’s beliefs and rites.

Law – Article 9, read in the light of Article 11: Owing to the district court’s failure to
register it the religious association was unable to acquire legal personality and exercise
the rights associated with that status in its own name, such as the right to own or rent
property, hold bank accounts or bring legal proceedings – rights which were nevertheless
essential for the purpose of manifesting its religion. Thus the refusal to register the
association pursuant to the Religions Act constituted interference with the rights secured
under Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11. The interference
was “prescribed by law” and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and
the rights and freedoms of others.

The sole ground relied on by the Supreme Court of Cassation for denying the application
was the lack of any sufficiently precise and clear indication of the beliefs and rites of the
Ahmadi faith in the association’s constitution. It had concluded that the constitution did
 2

not meet the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Religions Act, which sought
to distinguish between the different denominations and avoid confrontations between
religious communities.

The name of the religious association and its constitution clearly indicated that it
belonged to the Ahmadiyya Community, which was present throughout the world, and its
constitution set out the beliefs and fundamental values of its followers. The Religions Act
did not contain any specific provisions as to what degree of precision such a description
should have or what specific information had to be given in the statement of beliefs and
rites. There were no other rules or guidelines accessible to the applicants which could
have been of help to them in that connection. It had not therefore been straightforward
for the applicants to ensure that their constitution complied with the precision required
by the domestic courts. In addition, the applicants were not given the possibility of
rectifying the shortcoming by providing additional information to the relevant courts.

The religious association, as a prerequisite for registration, had to show how its beliefs
were different from denominations already registered and, in particular, from the
mainstream Muslim faith. Such an approach, when strictly adopted as was the case here,
would lead in practice to the refusal of registration of any new religious association with
the same doctrine as an existing denomination. Having regard to the impossibility under
Bulgarian law for an association with religious activities to obtain legal personality by any
other means, that approach of the highest court could result in allowing the existence of
only one religious association for each religious movement and in requiring all followers
to adhere to it. Moreover, the assessment of the nature of beliefs was a matter for the
courts and not for the religious communities themselves.

Such an approach was hard to reconcile with the freedom of religion secured by Article 9
of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11. The right to freedom of religion
excluded in principle any assessment by the State of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or
the forms of expression of those beliefs, even if the aim was to preserve unity within a
religious community. The alleged lack of precision in the description of the religious
association’s beliefs and rites in its constitution was not capable of justifying the denial of
the registration in question, which was accordingly not necessary in a democratic
society.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 4,000 to the first applicant for non-pecuniary damage; finding of
violation sufficient in itself for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the other
applicants.

(See Hassan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, 30985/96, 26 October 2000; Metropolitan Church
of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, 45701/99, 13 December 2001, Information
Note 37; Kimlya and Others v. Russia, 76836/01 and 32782/03, 1 October 2009,
Information Note 123; and İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], 62649/10,
26 April 2016, Information Note 195)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights

This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes