5.  The applicant, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church of the village of Sosulivka in the Chortkiv Region (Tserkva Sela Sosulivka), is a religious group belonging to the patriarchate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church («Українська греко-католицька церква села Сосулівка Чортківського району Тернопільської області»). The head of the applicant association is its priest, Father Roman Gamratsey. 6.  In accordance with a decision by the Ternopil Regional State Administration (“Ternopil Regional Administration”) on 26 June 1997, the applicant was entitled to use church premises situated in the village of Sosulivka in the Ternopil Region (“церква Покрови Пречистої Діви Марії у с. Сосулівка”) for religious ceremonies. It was required to share the premises with another church of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (“UOP KP”; “Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату”). In accordance with paragraph 3 of the decision, the Chortkiv District State Administration of the Ternopil Region (“Chortkiv District Administration”) was to conclude separate agreements on the use of the church premises and its property with religious denominations, specifying particular times, procedures and conditions for their use. The decision itself did not provide specific details on how the premises and property were to be used. 7.  On 10 July 1997 the applicant concluded agreement on the use of the church premises with the Chortkiv District Administration and agreed to share it with the UOP KP on the conditions specified in this agreement. The agreement contained no details as to how the premises were to be used. The applicant also alleged that the UOP KP continued to use the premises without any agreement with the Chortkiv State Administration and impeded its own use of the premises. 8.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant requested the Ternopil Regional Administration to transfer the church premises to it for its sole use and its religious needs. It also informed the Ternopil Regional Administration that the UOC KP had refused to comply with the decision of 26 June 1997 and the agreement concluded with the Chortkiv State Administration on 10 July 1997. In reply, on 20 December 2000 the Department of Religious Affairs of the Ternopil Regional Administration informed the applicant that disputes over the use of religious premises that had been transferred to religious organisations in accordance with agreements on their use were within the competence of the State Bailiffs Service (section 14(3) of the Enforcement Proceedings Act). 9.  On 5 February 2001 the applicant lodged complaints with the Higher Arbitration Court against the Ternopil Regional Administration, seeking a transfer of the use of the church premises, as specified in the agreement with the Chortkiv District Administration. In particular, the applicant stated that the church sharing the premises had failed to comply with the decision of 26 June 1997. It further stated that under section 17 of the Freedom of Consciousness and Religious Organisations Act, the State as the owner had to manage the sharing and use of the church premises on the basis of agreements with the occupiers. 10.  On 19 February 2001 a judge of the Higher Arbitration Court rejected the applicant's complaint on the ground that it should have been lodged with a court of general jurisdiction, not an arbitration court dealing with commercial matters. In particular, he referred to the fact that the applicant had complained about the lack of arrangements for the use of the premises following the decision of the Ternopil Regional Administration of 26 June 1997 (see paragraph 6 above). 11.  On 13 April 2001 the Higher Arbitration Court, sitting in a chamber composed of two judges, examined the applicant's request to review the case in the course of supervisory review proceedings and upheld the decision of 19 February 2001. In particular, it referred to section 17 of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act of 23 April 1991, which stated that disputes over the use of religious premises were to be examined under the Code of Civil Procedure by the courts of general jurisdiction and not by the arbitration (commercial) courts. It further mentioned that the decision of the Ternopil Regional Administration was an “enforceable document” and could have been enforced in accordance with Articles 348 and 349 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12.  The applicant appealed to the President of the Higher Arbitration Court seeking his intervention by means of a supervisory review appeal against the decisions of 19 February and 13 April 2001. 13.  On 19 July 2001 the President of the Higher Commercial Court (as the Higher Arbitration Court was now called) rejected the applicant's request owing to the changes introduced to the Code of Commercial Procedure, which made the ruling of 13 April 2001 final and not subject to any appeal. 14.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ternopil Court (Тернопільський міський суд), the local first instance court of general jurisdiction, against the Ternopil Regional Administration for a transfer of the premises to its sole use. 15.  On 4 May 2001 the court rejected this claim, stating that the courts of general jurisdiction had no authority to deal with disputes between legal entities. It also made an order for the dispute to be referred to the Ternopil Court of Arbitration, which, in its view, had jurisdiction over the matter. The applicant did not appeal in cassation and the ruling of 4 May 2001 became final. Instead, it lodged a request with the Ternopil Regional Court for supervisory review of the ruling of 4 May 2001. 16.  On 20 June 2001 the Ternopil Regional Court refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings in the case. In particular, the Deputy President of the Ternopil Regional Court informed the applicant that disputes between legal entities were within the jurisdiction of the arbitration courts and that there were thus no reasons for lodging a supervisory review appeal. He referred to Articles 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure. 17.  On 8 August 2001 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings in the case, informing the applicant that disputes involving ownership claims over church premises were within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts and disputes involving their use were to be examined by the local courts of general jurisdiction. It advised the applicant to clarify its claims. 18.  The applicant then instituted proceedings in the Kyiv Commercial Court for the transfer of the premises to its sole use. 19.  On 23 October 2001 the court refused to consider the applicant's claims, referring to the ruling of 13 April 2001 and the decision of the TRSA of 26 June 1997 by which the TRSA had already resolved the dispute. The court also made reference to a practice direction that had been issued by the HAC on 29 February 1996 (see paragraph 32 below). 20.  On 19 March 2002 the HCC upheld the ruling of 23 October 2001. It also held that the commercial courts had no jurisdiction over the case as it did not concern property issues, but a challenge against a decision taken by a State body, which was a matter to be dealt with in the course of administrative, not judicial, proceedings. 21.  On 20 June 2002 the Supreme Court refused to institute cassation proceedings in the case having found no grounds for doing so.