CASE OF LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 14+6-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Alena Poláčková;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Síofra O’Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani
11. The three applicants belong to the Romanian Church United to Rome, also known as the Greek Catholic or Uniate Church. 12. In 1948 the Greek Catholic Church was dissolved by Decree no. 358/1948, and its assets, with the exception of parish property, were transferred to the State; an inter-departmental committee was given responsibility for determining the ultimate allocation of the parish property. However, the committee never completed this task and the parish property was transferred to the Orthodox Church under Decree no. 177/1948. 13. In 1967 the property comprising the church building and the adjoining courtyard, which had belonged to the first applicant, was entered in the land register as having been transferred to the ownership of the Lupeni I Romanian Orthodox Parish (“the Orthodox parish”). 14. After the fall of the communist regime in December 1989, Decree no. 358/1948 was repealed by Legislative Decree no. 9/1989. The Uniate Church was officially recognised by Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 on certain measures concerning the Romanian Church United to Rome. Article 3 of that Legislative Decree provided that the legal status of property that had belonged to the Uniate parishes and that was in the possession of the Orthodox Church was to be determined by joint committees made up of representatives of both Uniate and Orthodox clergy. In reaching their decisions, the committees were to take into account “the wishes of the worshippers in the communities in possession of these properties”. 15. Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 was amended by Government Ordinance no. 64/2004 and Law no. 182/2005. Under the amended decree, in the event of disagreement between the members of the clergy representing the two denominations in a joint committee, the party with an interest in bringing judicial proceedings could do so under “ordinary law” (drept comun, see the procedure referred to in paragraphs 41 and 121 below). 16. The first applicant was legally re-established on 12 August 1996 and the applicants brought proceedings before the joint committee to have their former properties returned to them, but without success. 17. The domestic law, in particular Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 and the amendments made to it in 2004 and 2005, is set out in paragraphs 39 to 43 below. 18. On 23 May 2001 the second applicant brought proceedings before the domestic courts against the Arad Orthodox Archdiocese and the Orthodox parish. It requested that the expropriation of the church building and cemetery in Lupeni, carried out on the basis of Decree no. 358/1948, be set aside, and that the church be returned to the first applicant. The first and third applicants were mentioned in the initial statement of claim as representatives of the second applicant. 19. By a judgment of 10 October 2001, the Hunedoara County Court (“the County Court”) declared the action inadmissible on the ground that the dispute ought to be settled through the special procedure established by Legislative Decree no. 126/1990, that is, before the joint committee. 20. The first and second applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment. On 22 February 2002 they requested a stay of proceedings so that the case could be resolved by friendly settlement. On 25 March 2003 they applied for it to be restored to the court’s list of cases. On the same day, the Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the appeal, holding that the action was premature. In a final judgment of 24 November 2004, ruling on an appeal on points of law (recurs) by the first and second applicants, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”), quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and sent the case back to that court to be examined on the merits. 21. On 12 May 2006, in application of the legislative amendments to Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 which gave the courts jurisdiction to rule on the merits of cases concerning properties that had belonged to the Uniate parishes and were in the possession of the Orthodox Church (see paragraph 42 below), the Court of Appeal upheld the second applicant’s appeal and sent the case back to the County Court. 22. On 27 July 2006, when the case was restored to the County Court’s list, the action was amended in order to add the first and the third applicants formally as claimants in the proceedings. On 8 November 2006 the applicants supplemented their action with a claim for recovery of possession of the properties in question, on the basis of ordinary law. 23. The County Court asked the parties to organise a meeting in order to decide the fate of the church building in question, and to inform it of the outcome of the negotiations by 25 April 2007. The parties met on 20 April 2007 without reaching an agreement. 24. By a judgment of 27 February 2008, the County Court dismissed the applicants’ action on the ground that the Orthodox parish had become the legally recognised owner of the contested property by virtue of Decree no. 358/1948 and that it had behaved as an owner, inter alia by ensuring that the church was maintained properly. 25. By a judgment of 26 September 2008, ruling on an appeal by the applicants, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of 27 February 2008 on grounds of a procedural defect and remitted the case to the County Court. 26. By a judgment of 13 February 2009, the County Court found in favour of the applicants and ordered that the church be returned to the first applicant. Comparing the parties’ title deeds in respect of the property in question, it noted that the Greek Catholic party had been entered in the land register as owner of the property from 1940, and that in 1967 the Orthodox Church had entered its ownership right to the same property, transferred to it under Decree no. 358/1948. It held that the repealing of Decree no. 358/1948 had had the effect in the present case of terminating the Orthodox party’s right of ownership over the disputed property. It also pointed out that the first applicant did not have a place of worship and that it was obliged to hold its religious services in premises which it rented from the Roman Catholic Church. 27. By a judgment of 11 June 2010, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal lodged by the Orthodox parish and dismissed the applicants’ action. On the basis of the evidence in the case file, it noted, firstly, that the church building being claimed and two parsonages in Lupeni had been constructed between 1906 and 1920 by Eastern-rite Orthodox and Greek Catholic worshippers and that, after its construction, the church building had been used alternately for services by both denominations. It noted that in 1948 the members of the Greek Catholic Church had been obliged to convert to the Orthodox Church and that this church building had been transferred to the ownership of the Orthodox Church, which had maintained it and carried out renovation work. 28. The Court of Appeal also examined statements, collected by the County Court, from four witnesses. It noted that these statements supported the statistical data indicating that there were more Orthodox than Greek Catholic worshippers in Lupeni. It noted that, according to the most recent census, there were 24,968 Orthodox worshippers and 509 Greek Catholic worshippers in Lupeni. It also compared the witness statements, written documents attesting to the number of Greek Catholic worshippers as declared when the Greek Catholic Church was re-established in Lupeni, and data from the most recent census conducted in Lupeni. 29. It then reasoned as follows: “... although the action was based on the provisions of ordinary law, namely Article 480 of the Civil Code, in view of its subject matter the court cannot rule without applying the provisions of Article 3 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990, to the effect that the legal situation of places of worship and parsonages ... must be determined taking account of the wishes of the worshippers in the community that is in possession of the properties”. 30. It considered that, given that there were more Orthodox than Greek Catholic worshippers in Lupeni, including the converts who no longer wished to return to the Greek Catholic Church, their refusal had to be taken into account in ruling on the case. It found that “having regard to the social and historical realities, ignoring the wishes and proportional strength of Orthodox worshippers, who are in the majority, in relation to the far fewer Greek Catholic worshippers, would be to undermine the stability and certainty of legal relations”. 31. The Court of Appeal held that the fact that Decree no. 358/1948 had been repealed did not automatically mean that the Orthodox Church’s title had been annulled, as this Decree represented the law in force at the time that the ownership right was transferred. In consequence, it considered that, although it had been granted under legislation which had subsequently been declared unlawful, the Orthodox Church’s title had been valid from the date on which the transfer had been made, with the result that the action to recover possession was unfounded. 32. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before the High Court, alleging that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied the legal provisions governing actions for recovery of possession. They argued that the right of ownership could not be linked to a religion’s majority status, since ownership was a legal concept that was independent of the numerical strength and wishes of the parties. 33. On 15 June 2011 the High Court, by a majority, delivered a final judgment in which it set out, in detail, the decisions taken by the lower courts. Reiterating that those courts alone had jurisdiction to establish the facts, it endorsed their findings of fact. It dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment delivered on appeal. As to the applicable law, it held, in particular, as follows: “Pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 ... a distinction is made between two situations: (a) that in which the property is in the ownership of the State ... (b) that in which the places of worship and the parishes have been taken over by the Romanian Orthodox Church and in respect of which [the question of] restitution will be decided by a joint committee made up of representatives of the clergy of the two denominations, a committee which will take account of the wishes of the worshippers in the communities in possession of these properties. In the light of those provisions, the Court of Appeal, examining an action for recovery of possession of a place of worship, correctly applied the criterion of the wishes of the (predominantly Orthodox) worshippers of the community in possession of the property, while simultaneously emphasising the unlawfulness of the reasoning of the first-instance court, which had merely compared the title deeds and ignored the special law... However, it appears that there are 24,968 Orthodox worshippers and 509 Greek Catholic worshippers in Lupeni, that the worshippers who were obliged to transfer to the Orthodox Church in 1948 do not wish to return to the Greek Catholic Church and that an attempt has been made to resolve [the dispute] through the joint clerical committee (according to the minutes of 20 April 2007 ... the Orthodox party had indicated that the request for the return of the place of worship could not be granted, having regard to the wishes of the worshippers in the parish and the fact that since 1948 the place of worship has been administered by the Orthodox believers)... The fact of supplementing Article 3 [of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990] with a paragraph stating “If the committee does not meet within the period established in its mandate, or if the committee does not reach a conclusion or if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the committee, the party with an interest in bringing judicial proceedings may do so under ordinary law” does not mean that actions for restitution governed by the special provisions are transformed into applications to establish title under ordinary law. A court which is required to examine such an action cannot ignore the special regulations in this area, which indicate the criterion to be taken into account in resolving such claims, namely the wishes of the worshippers in the community in possession of the property. In other words, by virtue of its full jurisdiction and in order not to compromise access to justice, a court may be called upon to decide an action on the merits, even though the prior procedure did not culminate in a decision by the joint clerical committee; at the same time, however, it may not go beyond the limits imposed by the special statutory framework. The priority to be given to the criterion of the worshippers’ wishes was decided by the legislature, which wished in this way to regulate an area which concerns the buildings assigned to a particular use (places of worship), [and so] the court is not entitled to criticise the law. Moreover, in ruling on the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 3 of Decree no. 126/1990 and the criterion of the worshippers’ wishes, the Constitutional Court has stated that the text did not infringe the principle of democracy of the Romanian State, nor that of the freedom of religious denominations (CC decision no. 23/1993, CC decision no. 49/1995)... In the Court of Appeal’s view, the fact that the State unlawfully dispossessed the Greek Catholic Church of its places of worship in 1948 cannot be remedied – in a State subject to the rule of law – by committing the opposite error, that is, by failing to take account of the wishes of the majority of worshippers at the point of adopting the given measure. Returning the properties which belonged to the Greek Catholic Church without respecting the criteria imposed by Article 3 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 would undermine the stability and certainty of legal relations. A right cannot be reconstructed in abstracto, in disregard of social and historical realities, and mitigation of past damage must not create disproportionate new problems... Moreover, in order to be able to bring an action for recovery of possession under ordinary law rather than under the special law, the appellants must rely on the existence of a “possession”, namely of a pecuniary right that could be relied upon by them. However, the Greek Catholic denomination was dissolved by Decree no. 358/1948 and the assets of the Greek Catholic Church passed into the ownership of the State. The building in question is currently entered (in the land register ... as belonging to the Lupeni I Romanian Orthodox Church. The fact that, through Legislative Decree no. 9/1989, the Romanian Church United to Rome (Greek Catholic) was officially recognised following the repeal of Decree no. 358/1948 does not mean that all of its titles to property were restored, in so far as the right of ownership is subject to a procedure (namely the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 and its subsequent amendments), and the hope of obtaining title to property is not to be equated with a possession...” 34. In a separate opinion, one of the judges sitting in the case noted that the legislature’s reference to ordinary law could not be reduced to a purely procedural dimension, but was to be interpreted as the application of a rule of substantive law. Referring to the rules governing the preparation of statutes, the judge expressed the opinion that if the legislature had wished to ascribe a specific meaning to this reference to “ordinary law”, it ought to have done so explicitly. As an action for recovery of possession involved a comparison of the relevant property titles, the judge concluded that the Orthodox Church had no such title to the church building in question.