Manzanas Martín v. France (no. 17966/10) – Chamber Judgment 3 April 2012. The applicant, Francisco Manzanas Martín, is a Spanish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Barcelona. He was a minister of the Evangelical Church until he reached retirement age. During his years as a minister, he received remuneration from the Evangelical Church. However, the Church did not pay any social security contributions on his behalf as this was not provided for by the legislation. Mr Manzanas Martín had previously worked as an employee before being ordained and had also been in paid employment for part of his time as a minister. When he applied to the National Social Security Agency for a retirement pension, his application was refused on the grounds that he had not completed the minimum period of pensionable service. Mr Manzanas Martín contends that the decision to refuse him a retirement pension was in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. He submits that the legislation discriminated against Evangelical ministers compared with Catholic priests, insofar as the former had been admitted later to the social security scheme and had then not been allowed to count their earlier years as ministers towards the minimum period of pensionable service, unlike Catholic priests. The applicant relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and on Article 9 (right to freedom of religion).
In a Third Section judgment of 3 April 2012, the Court found a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol 1. As to the Article 9 issue, the Court declared it admissible, but found no need to examine the issue separately.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the question regarding Mr Manzanas Martin’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage was not ready for decision and reserved it in its entirety.
The Court held that Spain was to pay the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
Sessa v. Italy (no. 28790/08) – Chamber Judgment 3 April 2012. The applicant, Francesco Sessa, is an Italian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Naples (Italy). He is a member of the Jewish faith and a lawyer by profession. In his capacity as representative of one of the complainants in a case, he appeared before the investigating judge at a hearing concerning the production of evidence. As the judge was prevented from sitting, his replacement invited the parties to choose between two dates for the adjourned hearing. The applicant pointed out that both dates corresponded to Jewish religious festivals and that his religious obligations would prevent him from attending. The hearing was set down for one of the two dates in question and Mr Sessa applied for an adjournment. The prosecution and counsel for the defendants objected to the application on the ground that there was no legally recognised reason for granting an adjournment. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of religion), Mr Sessa alleges that the refusal by the judicial authority to postpone the hearing set down for the date of a religious festival prevented him from taking part in his capacity as the representative of one of the complainants and infringed his right to manifest his religion freely.
In a Third Section judgment of 3 April 2012, the Court found no violation of Article 9 in the case. "The Court considered in particular that, even supposing that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right under Article 9, such interference, prescribed by law, was justified on grounds of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others – and in particular the public’s right to the proper administration of justice – and the principle that cases be heard within a reasonable time."
Charalambous and Others and 28 other cases v. Turkey (no. 46744/07) - Inadmissible 2 April 2012. The applicants are Cypriot nationals, relatives of 29 Greek-Cypriot men, both civilians and army personnel, who went missing in July-August 1974 following the invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkish armed forces. The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons. All applicants complain under Article 2 about the disappearance and death of their relatives and the lack of effective investigation into those matters, as well as invoking Articles 3 (as concerns the victim and/or themselves) and 5 in that regard. Other complaints are made under Article 8 of the effect on family life and under Article 14 of discrimination. Complaints are also made under Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17.
The Court adjourned the examination of the applicants' complaints concerning the lack of investigation following the discovery of the remains of their relatives and the treatment which they suffer as a result, and declared the rest of the application inadmissible.
In a decision of 2 April 2012, the Court judged that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 were premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The Court further decided not to pursue the complaints raised under Article 34 of the Convention.
Gas and Dubois v. France (no. 2595/07) - Chamber Judgment 15 Mar 2012. The applicants are two cohabiting French women. The case concerned the refusal of the application by one of the women for a simple adoption order in respect of the child of the other. The Court saw no evidence of a difference in treatment based on the applicants' sexual orientation, as opposite-sex couples who had entered into a civil partnership were likewise prohibited from obtaining a simple adoption order. The Court, therefore, found no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
Brbyan v. Netherlands (no. 33319/11) - Stricken 13 March 2012. hThe applicant, Mr Wainys Krekor Brbryan, is an Iraqi national, Christian, who lives in Ter Apel, Netherlands. He complained before the ECtHR under Article 3 of the Convention of the refusal of his request for asylum in the Netherlands and his threatened forced return to Iraq.
On 22 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that the policy in force in the Netherlands relating to Christian asylum seekers from Iraq had not been applied correctly in the case of the applicant and that it had therefore been decided to withdraw the decision taken on the applicant’s asylum request. It had subsequently been decided to grant the applicant a residence permit for the purpose of asylum valid until 4 November 2015.
In light of this, the Court unanimously decided to strike the application from its list of cases.
Mehmet Emin Şimşek v. Turkey (no. 5488/05) - Chamber Judgment 28 February 2012. The applicant, Mehmet Emin Simsek, is a Turkish national who lives in Batman (Turkey). He was an imam at a mosque. In February 2000 he was arrested and taken into pre-trial detention in the context of proceedings concerning the illegal armed fundamentalist organisation Hizbullah. On 5 May 2000 the Office of the Director of Religious Affairs decided to dismiss him because of his links with the illegal organisation, stating that he no longer met the requirements for working as an imam.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Simsek complained that he had not had the benefit of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court since he had not been provided with an advance copy of the opinion of State Counsel at that court.
The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded just satisfaction in the amount og EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
Vejdeland v. Sweden (no. 1813/07) - Chamber Judgments 9 February 2012. Held, unanimously, that criminal conviction for distributing leaflets offensive to homosexuals was not contrary to freedom of expression (Article 10).
Sindicatul "Păstorul cel Bun" v. Romania (no.2330/09) - Chamber Judgment 31 January 2012. [Excerpts from the Court Press Release]: The applicant, Păstorul cel Bun, is a union established in April 2008 by 35 clerics and lay members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the majority of them Orthodox priests in parishes of the Metropolis of Oltenia (a region in south-western Romania). The aim of the union, as set forth in its statutes, is to defend the professional, economic, social and cultural interests of its members, both clerics and lay members, in their dealings with the Church hierarchy and the Ministry of Cultural and Religious Affairs.
The union made an application to the district court to be granted legal personality and to be entered in the official register of trade unions. The representative of the Archdiocese objected to the application, arguing that the internal regulations of the Orthodox Church prohibited the creation of any kind of association without the prior consent of the Archbishop. The Romanian court first ordered the registry of the trade union and then, upon the appeal of the Archdiocese, set aside the action. In its application to the European Court of Human Rights, the union alleged violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).
In finding a violation of Article 11, the Court considered that a relationship based on an employment contract could not be "clericalised" to the point of being exempted from all rules of civil law. Members of the clergy, and to a still greater extent lay employees of the Church, could not be excluded from the scope of protection of Article 11. The refusal to register the union had been based on the laws on freedom of association and religious freedom, interpreted in the light of the Statute of the Orthodox Church, and had therefore had a legal basis. ... Moreover, the county court had not established that the union’s program was incompatible with a "democratic society", still less that it represented a threat to democracy. The criteria defining a "pressing social need" had therefore not been met. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant union 10,000 euros (EUR) to cover all heads of damage.
Bigea v. Moldova (no. 21867/09) - Communicated 27 June 2011, Friendly Settlement/Stricken 24 January 2012. The applicant, a Romanian national, is a priest of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia who has been assigned to a church in a Moldovan village for the past sixteen years. He complains that refusal of the authorities to let him enter Moldova prevented his being able to be with his congregation for Easter, a very important religious event in Moldova. Applicant cites violations of ECHR Articles 6, 8, and 9. In view of a friendly settlement between the parties received by the Court on 15 November 2011, in which the Government of Moldova agreed to pay the applicant 2,500 euros to cover damages, expenses, and tax, the Court on 24 January 2012 decided to strike the application out of its list of cases.