The Canea Catholic Church v. Greece (Application no. 25528/94)

From DADEL

1) Reference Details

Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights Date of decision: 16 December 1997 Link to full case: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&key=31838&portal=hbkm&sour ce=external&table=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49

2) Facts

The Application against the Hellenic Republic was lodged by a Greek national, the Right Reverend Frangiskos Papamanolis, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Islands of Syros, Milos and Thera and Acting Bishop of Crete, on behalf of Canea Catholic Church. He complained that the Greek courts's refusal to acknowledge the legal personality of the Catholic Church of the Virgin Mary in Canea amounted to discriminatory interference with its right of access to a court, its right to respect for its freedom of religion and its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions in accordance with Articles 6 § 1, 9, 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("Convention”) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Roman Catholic Church of the Virgin Mary in Canea belongs to the diocese of Crete. It has been used as a place of worship continuously since at least 1879. The building was acquired by the church by adverse possession. In June 1987, two people living next to the church, Mr. I.N. and Mr. A.K., demolished one of its surrounding walls and made a window looking onto the church in the wall of their own building.

On 2 February 1988, the church, represented by the abbot, the Right Reverend Giorgios Roussos, applied to the Canea District Court seeking a declaration that it was the owner of the wall in question and an order that the defendants must cease the nuisance and restore the previously existing situation.

On 18 October 1988, the District Court held that the wall was owned by the church and ordered the defendants to rebuild it to its original height. On 18 May 1989 the Court of First Instance, allowing the appeal, quashed the judgment of the court below on the ground that Catholic churches in Greece had no legal personality and were thus prevented from bringing legal proceedings. On appeal to the Court of Cassation, the Church presented documents which showed that it had in its own name acquired, used and freely transferred movable and immovable property, concluded contracts and taken part in notarized property transactions that have always been recognized as valid. It had also enjoyed exemptions from taxation provided in Greek legislation on charitable foundations and non-profit- making associations. The Court of Cassation affirmed the decision below, reasoning that the Church did not comply with the formalities of the Greek Civil Code.

3) Admissibility

The Application was found to be admissible.

1

4) Merits

The Court observed that the decision of the Court of Cassation imposed a real restriction on the Applicant church, preventing it on this particular occasion and in the future from having any dispute relating to its property rights determined by the courts. Such a limitation impairs the very substance of the Applicant church's "right to a court" and therefore constitutes a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court declined to rule on the question of whether personality in public law or personality in private law would be more appropriate for the Applicant church. It noted that the Orthodox Church or the Jewish community can take legal proceedings to protect their own property without any formality or required procedure. The Court considered that there has also been a breach of Article 14 taken together with Article 6 § 1, as no objective and reasonable justification for such a difference of treatment had been put forward. The Court considered it unnecessary to examine the case under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

5) Decision

The Court held that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 6 § . It held that it is unnecessary to rule on the complaints based on Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, each taken alone or combined with Article 14 of the Convention

2