Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02)The applicant, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church of the village of Sosulivka (Tserkva Sela Sosulivka), is a religious group belonging to the patriarchate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (Українська греко-католицька церква села Сосулівка Чортківського району Тернопільської області).In a decision of 26 June 1997 Ternopil Regional State Administration granted the applicant Church the right to share the Sosulivka Church with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату). On 10 July 1997 the applicant Church signed an agreement with Chortkiv District Administration on the use of the village church. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church refused, however, to comply with that decision or agreement and prevented the applicant Church from using the village church. The case concerned the applicant Church’s complaint that, in the ensuing legal proceedings, it could not obtain the transfer of the church premises for its sole use. The applicant Church relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of acces to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).The Court noted, in particular, that only one church had been available for use in Sosulivka and that the Bailiffs’ Service and the State Administration Services had been unable to asist the applicant Church in settling the dispute with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, those authorities had undertaken no effective measures in order to enforce the decision of 26 June 1997 or the contract of 10 July 1997. The applicant Church had therefore had no choice but to seek judicial protection of its rights. Those proceedings were, however, unsuccesful as the Ukrainian courts, either general or commercial, had found that they did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter. In the Court’s view, that situation had amounted to a denial of justice which had impaired the very esence of the applicant’s right of acces to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Given that finding, the Court further held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13. The applicant Church was awarded EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Ранее | Позже