GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH PESCEANA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicants in the present case are the Greek-Catholic parish of Pesceana, a religious body created on 20 January 2005 in Pesceana, as well as some of its members, Romanian nationals living in Pesceana. Their names, year of birth and place of residence appear in the first appendix to this report. The applicant Mr Victor Tudor acted as their representative. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The Romanian Greek-Catholic Association was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. On 19 January 2005 Mr Victor Tudor, who at that time was the Orthodox priest of the Pesceana parish, decided together with 358 members of his parish, to join the Eastern Catholic Church (“the GreekCatholic Church”). The next day they were recognised as a parish by the GreekCatholic Archdiocese of Blaj (Mitropolia Româna Unită cu Roma Blaj) and Mr Tudor was ordained priest of that parish. The applicant parish thus became legitimate under the applicable laws. 6. On 22 January 2005 the Pesceana local authorities refused to recognise the new parish, denied its members access to the village church and cemetery, and advised the Râmnicul Orthodox Diocese (Episcopia Râmnicului) to take appropriate action against Mr Tudor. On 29 March 2005 the local council reiterated its decision. On 3 June 2005 they also refused to allow the Greek-Catholic parish to hold its religious gatherings in a deserted school building. 7. On 24 January 2005 Mr Tudor resigned from his previous position in the Orthodox Church. He was defrocked the next day, and the Orthodox Church sent a new Orthodox priest to the local parish. 8. On 27 January 2005 the Râmnicul Orthodox Diocese lodged a request, by means of the urgent procedure (ordonanţă preşedenţială), concerning ownership of Church property. In a final decision of 8 March 2005 the Vâlcea County Court ordered Mr Tudor to surrender the property belonging to the Orthodox Church to the plaintiff and to stop using the village church and cemetery for Greek-Catholic practices. 9. On 24 February 2005 the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs asked the GreekCatholic archdiocese to re-examine its decision to ordain Mr Tudor as a Greek-Catholic priest in Pesceana. They suggested that his withdrawal might facilitate the dialogue between the two parishes in the community. 10. On 27 May 2005 the Pesceana local authorities transferred ownership of the cemetery to the Orthodox parish. On 17 June 2005 they delivered the title deeds for the land to the Orthodox parish. However, on 10 October 2008 in proceedings instituted by the Pesceana local authorities against the Greek-Catholic Church, the Vâlcea County Court declared the deeds null and void. 11. Several members of the Pesceana Greek-Catholic parish lodged a complaint against the local authorities and the Orthodox community with the National Council against Discrimination. The council examined the administrative decision of 22 January 2005 and noted that the plaintiffs had been denied access to the village church and cemetery. It concluded that the local authorities had breached the applicants’ freedom of conscience and disregarded their religious autonomy. Consequently, the Council issued a warning to the local authorities. It gave its decision on 31 August 2005. 12. The conflicts between the two religious communities escalated. The Orthodox community prohibited the Greek-Catholics from entering the cemetery to bury their dead or honour their memory. According to the applicants, they suffered increased pressure to revert to Orthodoxy: they were asked to sign a declaration renouncing their Catholicism if they wanted the local authorities to deliver any official service; they received unjustified fines; some of them were threatened with dismissal from their jobs; and the local school organised a public demonstration against the Catholic Church. Some 300 individuals gave written statements that they had been misled by Mr Tudor into changing their faith. Some people lodged criminal complaints against those who had allegedly threatened them in order to force them to revert to Orthodoxy. The Greek-Catholic archdiocese intervened in their favour by engaging in a written exchange with the local authorities. It was, however, to no avail. 13. Several criminal complaints were also lodged by both parties to the conflict, mainly concerning incidents that occurred in 2005 and 2006. 14. On 21 March 2005, using the urgent procedure, the applicant parish sought to compel the Orthodox parish to allow Greek-Catholics the right to use the village cemetery to bury their dead and for memorial services. 15. On 6 September 2005 the Drăgăşani District Court found in favour of the applicant parish. On 19 January 2006 the Vâlcea County Court upheld the decision, which thus became final. The courts held that the applicant parish had been recognised by the Greek-Catholic Church and was thus legally constituted. It reiterated that, according to the Religious Freedom Act, as the village had only one cemetery, all individuals had to have access to the burial grounds, irrespective of their faith. 16. As the Greek-Catholics continued to be denied access to the cemetery by the Orthodox community, the applicant parish sought the services of a bailiff. On 3 February 2006 the County Court issued an enforcement order concerning the decision of 19 January 2006. 17. On 13 February 2006 the bailiff notified the Pesceana Orthodox Church and the Râmnicu Orthodox Diocese of his intention to enforce the above decision and sought assistance from the police. On 18 and 20 February 2006 a group of persons from Pesceana and the neighbouring villages did not allow the applicants, the bailiff or the police to enter the cemetery. Not even the police intervention on behalf of the applicants was able to deter the opposing parish. According to the bailiff’s report, the new Orthodox priest refused to assist him and the GreekCatholics of the village in the enforcement attempts or to talk with his followers. He claimed that he was engaged in other religious duties at that time. As the two parties became violent, the bailiff stopped the proceedings in order to avoid any escalation. 18. The Orthodox parish objected to the enforcement proceedings and on 22 February 2006 the Drăgăşani District Court temporarily suspended the enforcement order until a final ruling had been given on the objection. 19. On 16 May 2006 the Drăgăşani District Court held that the decision of 6 September 2005 was enforceable until the litigation concerning ownership of the cemetery had been examined (see paragraph 10 above). It nevertheless maintained the suspension of the enforcement order until a final ruling had been given on the objection. The decision became final on 3 November 2006, when the Vâlcea County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants. 20. On 19 May 2006 several members of the applicant parish (see appendix two below) lodged an action against the Orthodox parish and the Râmnicu Orthodox Diocese seeking access to the cemetery to bury their dead and perform the relevant rituals. 21. On 14 October 2008 the Vâlcea County Court partially allowed the request. A final ruling in the case was given on 26 February 2009 by the Piteşti Court of Appeal. The courts took note of the fact that the title deeds delivered to the Orthodox parish had been declared null and void. Using the same arguments as those advanced by the County Court under the urgent procedure, the courts recognised the rights of the Greek-Catholic members of the community to be buried in the Greek-Catholic tradition. The Court of Appeal further decided that persons who embraced the Greek-Catholic faith would not be allowed to perform Greek-Catholic rituals for deceased members of their families who had been buried according to the Orthodox tradition. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal considered that the person’s own convictions at the time of death should be subsequently respected by the family in the choice of rites. 22. After communication of the application, the Government sought information about the current situation in Pesceana. The State Secretary for Religious Affairs approached the Râmnicu Orthodox Diocese, which informed him that Greek-Catholics had free access to the cemetery and that in 2007 the Pesceana Greek-Catholic parish had received 30,000 Romanian Lei from the State budget in order to build a church. 23. The Pesceana mayor’s office informed the Government that neither religious community was being obstructed from using the cemetery and that the police had recorded no incidents in recent years. Statements by the two local priests were attached to the mayor’s report. The Orthodox priest explained that the Greek-Catholic priest was allowed into the cemetery in order to bury the deceased members of his community, but accused him of performing Greek-Catholic rituals for deceased Orthodox believers. Mr Tudor declared that their access was still restricted and that pressure had been exerted on members of the Greek-Catholic community to resign from their Church and join the Orthodox Church. 24. In 2011 the Orthodox priest lodged a criminal complaint against a Greek-Catholic believer who had buried her deceased parent in the village cemetery according to Greek-Catholic rites. The prosecutor decided not to prosecute, reiterating that the Greek-Catholic believers had a right, which had been recognised by a court order, to use the cemetery; the prosecutor also noted that no damage had been done to the neighbouring graves belonging to Orthodox families. Another burial took place in 2011 and allegations of police brutality against Greek-Catholic believers in the aftermath of the religious service were dismissed as unfounded by the prosecutor. 25. It appears that the Pesceana local authorities have recently decided to create a new cemetery for all faiths. 26. Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning the enforcement of final judgments are given in Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 26270/04, §§ 31-32, 19 November 2013. 27. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the general situation of recognised religious groups, and in particular the situation of the Greek-Catholic community, are described in Remetii pe Somes GreekCatholic Parish v. Romania (dec.), no. 13073/03, §§ 11-12, 9 September 2014.