PRESS RELEASE
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
IN THE CASE OF
FIKRI SALI HASAN AND ISMAIL CHAUSH
In a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 26 October 2000 in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Under Article 41 of the Convention (right to a just satisfaction) the Court awarded 10,000 Bulgarian Levs for non-pecuniary damages to the first applicant, Mr Hasan, and a total of 10,000 Bulgarian Levs to both applicants for legal costs and expenses. Mr. Hasan and Mr. Chaush were represented before the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights by the Legal Program of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee.
In its judgment, the Court considered that the facts demonstrating a failure by the authorities to remain neutral in the exercise of their powers in respect of administrative registration of religious communities, lead to the conclusion that the state had interfered with the believers' freedom to manifest their religion within the meaning of Article 9. This interference, according to the Court should be based on law providing sufficient protection against arbitrary limitation of fundamental rights. In the case at issue, the Court held that Bulgarian legislation did not provide any clear and foreseeable criteria for the registration of the leadership of a religious community and therefore was not in compliance with the standards of the European Convention. In conclusion, the Court pointed out that the interference with the organizational life of the Muslim religion and as a consequence with the applicants' freedom to manifest their religion was not "prescribed by law" in that it had been arbitrary and had been based on legal provisions which allowed for unfettered discretion of the executive and had not met the required standards for clarity and foreseeability.
In connection with the allegation of lack of an effective remedy, the Court noted that the Bulgarian Supreme Court had refused to examine the substance of Mr Hasan's appeal, considering that the Government enjoyed full discretion whether or not to register the bylaws and leadership of a religious community. The appeal to the Supreme Court against the February 1995 decisions had not been, therefore, an effective remedy. The Government had refused to comply with two other judgments of the Supreme Court. No other remedy had existed. Therefore, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Facts
In 1992 the national conference of the Muslim believers in Bulgaria adopted new bylaws of the denomination and elected a new leadership with Mr Fikri Sali Hasan as Chief Mufti. The new bylaws and leadership were registered on 1 October 1992 in accordance with the provisions of the Denominations Act. In violation of the 1992 bylaws and not on behalf of legitimate representatives, in November 1994 Mr Nedim Gendjev organised a conference which adopted another bylaws and elected another leadership. In January 1995, in order to solve the dispute, the legitimate leadership of the Muslim believers in Bulgaria called a national conference scheduled for 6 March 1995. With an unmotivated decision from 22 February 1995, two weeks before the conference, the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of denominations, Mr Svetoslav Shivarov, registered the bylaws and the leadership elected at the November 1994 conference. Mr Hasan's attempts for protection against the unlawful decision and the subsequent acts of the newly registered leadership were not examined in substance by the competent authorities.
On 6 March 1995 the legitimate leadership of the Muslim believers in Bulgaria organized a national conference where delegates of all local Muslim Chapters were present. The onference re-elected Mr Hasan as Chief Mufti. In spite of the legitimacy of the conference and of its decisions, the Council of Ministers refused to register the leadership elected on 6 March 1995 until November 1997, when a new national conference was held and a new leadership elected. The Council of Ministers refused to register the leadership irrespective of the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court had twice granted Mr Hasan's appeal against the refusal of the Council of Ministers to register the bylaws and the leadership.