5.  The applicant is the Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish, which belongs to the Maramureş Greek-Catholic Diocese United with Rome and is located in the village of Bogdan Vodă, Romania. The priest-vicar of the parish, Mr Ioan Petreuş, authorised Mr M. Cupcea, a lawyer practising in Sighetu Marmaţiei, to represent the applicant before the Court. 6.  Until 1948 there were two recognised Christian religious groups in Bogdan Vodă, the Greek-Catholic and the Orthodox, each having its own church. 7.  The Greek-Catholic Church was abolished in that year by Decree no. 358/1948 and its members were obliged to adhere to the Orthodox Church. The goods of the Greek-Catholic Church were transferred to the Orthodox Church on the basis of Decree no. 177/1948 on the general regime for recognised religious groups, which provided that if the majority of a group’s believers became members of another church, the goods belonging to the abandoned group would be transferred into the property of that church. In 1948, following the entry into force of the above-mentioned legal provisions, the property rights over the goods belonging to the Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish were therefore transferred to the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish. 8.  Following the fall of the communist regime in December 1989, Decree no. 358/1948 was annulled by Decree no. 9/1989. Subsequently, the Greek-Catholic Church was officially recognised by Decree no. 126/1990. With respect to the legal status of the goods formerly owned by the Greek-Catholic Church, Decree no. 126/1990 provided that this would be decided by a special joint commission formed of representatives of the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic Churches. The commission was to take into account the wishes of the believers in each community. However, this commission rarely reached a consensus and took very few decisions with respect to the restitution of churches to the Greek-Catholics. 9.  In the village of Bogdan Vodă there are three churches which are the property of the Orthodox Parish: the “old church” (built between 1715 and 1720) which belonged to the Greek-Catholic Parish and is no longer in use, as it has been locked by the head of the Orthodox Parish; the Orthodox church (built between 1935 and 1937), also not in use; and a new Orthodox church (built between 1993 and 1998) currently used by the Orthodox Parish. 10.  The religious services of the Greek-Catholic Parish are currently held in an old house in Bogdan Vodă, a place which, according to the applicant, is not suitable for the needs of the local Greek-Catholic community. 11.  The applicant parish’s attempts to recover the property rights, or at least the use of the “old church” which it formerly owned, through negotiations with representatives of the Orthodox Church as provided by Decree no. 126/1990, have remained unresolved, and no special joint commission has ever been set up in this connection. The views of the Orthodox Church concerning the applicant parish’s demands were expressed in a letter sent to the applicant parish in 1995 by the Council of the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish. The letter noted that the Greek-Catholic Parish was forbidden to enter the “old church” and to perform religious services in the church’s cemetery, because of the very small number of Greek-Catholic believers in Bogdan Vodă. 12.  Following the failure of its attempts at negotiation, on 19 June 1996 the applicant parish brought a civil action against the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish, seeking the right to perform daily religious services in the “old church” and payment of 100,000 Romanian lei (ROL) in damages for each day of delay in enforcement. The civil action was based on the provisions of Article 1073 of the Civil Code, which sets forth the general rules with respect to obligations between private parties, as well as on the provisions of Decree no. 126/1990. 13.  The Dragomireşti District Court on 25 November 1996 rejected the applicant parish’s action as inadmissible, since it had not proved that an obligation existed in respect of the other party. 14.  On 15 May 1997 the Maramureş County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant parish against the first-instance court decision as ill-founded. 15.  In a final judgment of 29 January 1998 the Cluj Court of Appeal, after reassessing the evidence in the case, allowed the applicant parish’s appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 15 May 1997, and obliged the Orthodox Parish to allow the applicant parish to use the “old church” for daily religious services and to pay ROL 100,000 in damages for each day’s delay in the enforcement of this judgment. 16.  The General Prosecutor lodged an extraordinary appeal (recurs în anulare) against the 29 January 1998 judgment, claiming that by issuing a decision in the applicant parish’s case the Cluj Court of Appeal had breached first the provisions of Decree no. 126/1990 and second the Constitution, which provides that public property may not be alienated. The extraordinary appeal was finally rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice on 15 December 2000 as ill-founded. 17.  Immediately after the delivery of the judgment in its favour the applicant parish instituted enforcement proceedings. However, the execution was suspended until delivery of the final judgment in the extraordinary appeal proceedings in December 2000. Subsequently, in January 2001 the applicant parish again instituted enforcement proceedings before the domestic courts, and a notice was sent by the bailiff to the Orthodox Parish requesting enforcement of the 1998 judgment no later than 19 January 2001. 18.  It appears from a note produced by the bailiff on 26 September 2002 that it was impossible to enforce the judgment on that date because of a violent protest by around 300-400 Orthodox citizens of Bogdan Vodă as well as the refusal of the head of the Orthodox Parish (who is also the Orthodox priest of the village) to hand over the keys of the church. From the above-mentioned note it also appears that, although the local chief of police was present, no measures were taken to disperse the crowd and pursue the enforcement of the court decision. 19.  On 8 October 2002 a meeting between representatives of the two Churches was held in the bailiff’s office in the town of Sighet, in the presence of the police. The record of this meeting produced by the bailiff notes that the head of the Orthodox Parish refused to enforce the judgment, citing the opposition of the majority of the village’s inhabitants. 20.  On 27 September 2002 the applicant parish complained to the County Prefect, the Ministry of Justice, the County Police Office and the State Secretary for Religious Denominations that the orthodox priest of Bogdan Vodă was inciting the local community to obstruct the enforcement of a court judgment. No reply was received by the applicant organisation and no action was taken by the authorities to remedy the situation. 21.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant parish complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Maramureş County Court, seeking an investigation of the matter and support in enforcement of the 1998 judgment. The applicant parish stated in its complaint that the Orthodox priest of the village was opposing the enforcement of the final judgment, and that in a similar case in another village the intervention of the prosecuting authorities had proved effective and had actually led to the enforcement of the judgment in that case. No response to this complaint was ever received by the applicant parish. 22.  In January 2004 the applicant parish also complained to the President of Romania about the non-enforcement of the 1998 judgment. In response it was informed that the legal status of the churches formerly owned by the Greek-Catholics was to be decided by the special commission set up by Decree no. 126/1990, taking into consideration the will of the local community. 23.  On 3 October 2005 the applicant parish sent a letter expressly requesting the bailiff to continue the enforcement procedure. 24.  On 10 October 2005 the Dragomireşti District Court granted the bailiff’s request on behalf of the applicant parish and ordered the compulsory enforcement of the 1998 judgment. 25.  The applicant parish’s attempts to reach a friendly settlement of the situation by holding discussions with representatives of the Orthodox Church during the months of December 2005 and January 2006 produced no result. 26.  Another attempt to enforce the 1998 judgment took place at the request of the applicant parish on 26 January 2006, when the bailiff, accompanied by thirty-four police officers, went to the village of Bogdan Vodă. The record of this action made by the bailiff stated that the judgment could not be enforced because of a violent protest by around 300 Orthodox villagers and the refusal of the head of the Orthodox Parish to unlock the church. It concluded that the head of the Orthodox Parish had been informed that refusing to enforce a court judgment was punishable in law. According to the applicant parish, the presence of the protesting Orthodox villagers each time an attempt to enforce the court judgment took place was due to continual incitement by the head of the Orthodox Parish. 27.  On 26 September 2007 and 3 April and 10 September 2009 the bailiff again went to the village of Bogdan Vodă, but did not find any of the representatives of the Orthodox Parish. 28.  On 31 January 2008, the bailiff sent a letter to the Vişeu de Sus Orthodox Archpriestship, inviting them to submit information concerning the property of the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish, but received no reply. 29.  The bailiff informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by letter on 30 January 2009 that the legal obligation of the bailiff consisted only in taking action to fulfil an obligation to execute a judgment or in the event of refusal to execute. In the present case, the bailiff considered her legal obligation discharged once she had recorded the debtor’s refusal to fulfil the obligations set forth in the final judgment. 30.  The judgment of 29 January 1998 has not been enforced to date.