Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of the Religious Community of Svyato-Uspenskyy Parish v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case revolves around a dispute between two religious groups over the use of a church building in Ptycha village, Ukraine. The applicant community, initially part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church associated with the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP), complained that Ukrainian authorities failed to protect their right to use the church, particularly after a rival group from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP) sought to share or take over the building. The authorities responded by imposing a freezing order on the church, prohibiting its use by either group. The Court found that the authorities did not take sufficient steps to ensure the applicant community’s peaceful enjoyment of their religious rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court struck out parts of the application related to property rights and events that occurred outside the six-month time limit for lodging complaints.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the background of the case, including the tensions between the religious communities, the initial registration of the applicant community, and the events leading to the dispute over the church building. It details the freezing orders imposed by domestic courts and the criminal proceedings initiated in response to the conflict.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** The decision refers to Ukrainian law, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines physical evidence and the freezing of property. It also mentions international material, specifically reports from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (OSCE SMM), which documented the situation in Ptycha.
* **Preliminary Remarks:** The Court addressed the admissibility of complaints related to the change of the applicant community’s canonical jurisdiction in 2019, ultimately rejecting them as being lodged out of time. It also considered the government’s request to strike out the application, which was based on the argument that the applicant community no longer existed after joining the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).
* **The Law:** The Court examined the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Convention, focusing on freedom of religion. It assessed the admissibility of the complaint, considering the six-month time limit. The Court then delved into the merits of the case, outlining the relevant general principles regarding freedom of religion and the State’s role in ensuring religious harmony.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court considered the applicant community’s claims for damages and costs but rejected them, finding no causal link between the violation and the alleged pecuniary damage and deeming the claims for costs and expenses unsubstantiated.
* **Decision:** The Court decided to strike out part of the application and declared the complaint under Article 9 admissible, ultimately holding that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Article 9 Violation:** The core finding is that Ukraine violated Article 9 of the Convention by failing to take sufficient steps to protect the applicant community’s right to manifest their religion. The authorities’ decision to completely prohibit the use of the church building, instead of ensuring tolerance between the competing religious groups, was deemed insufficient.
* **State’s Role in Religious Disputes:** The decision emphasizes the State’s duty to act as a neutral and impartial organizer in situations where multiple religions coexist. The State should ensure mutual tolerance between opposing groups rather than eliminating pluralism.
* **Positive Obligations:** The Court highlighted the State’s positive obligation to secure the rights under Article 9, even when the acts complained of are carried out by private individuals. This means the State must take effective measures to protect religious groups from interference by others.
* **Time Limits:** The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the six-month time limit for lodging complaints with the Court. Complaints regarding events before April 2, 2018, were deemed inadmissible due to being lodged outside this period.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ongoing tensions between different religious communities. It highlights the State’s responsibility to protect the religious freedom of all groups and to ensure that disputes are resolved in a fair and tolerant manner.
