**1. Subject of the Dispute:**
\nA former nun filed a lawsuit against a monastery to remove obstacles to the use of a cell (residential premises), demanding unobstructed access to the premises and the provision of keys thereto.<\/p>\n
**2. Arguments of the Court:**
\n* The Court confirmed that the presence of a religious element does not deprive an individual of the right to judicial protection if they substantiate their claims using the norms of national law, rather than solely canonical law.
\n* The Grand Chamber emphasized the principle of autonomy of religious organizations: a secular court has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the church, such as monastic discipline, the status of a monk, or the rules of residence within a clausura (enclosed area).
\n* The Court established that a cell in a monastery has a specific functional status, which is not identical to that of ordinary housing, as its use is inextricably linked to the performance of monastic duties.
\n* The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an independent civil-law title (lease agreement, easement, etc.) to the use of this property that would operate independently of her status as a monastic.
\n* Registration of a place of residence at the address of the monastery does not, in itself, create a right of ownership or a right of use to specific premises in the absence of other legal grounds.
\n* The Court concluded that the forced eviction of a person who is no longer a member of the monastic community into a monastery cell would constitute a gross interference with the property rights of the religious organization and the freedom of religion of other monks.
\n* Thus, the lower courts erroneously conflated the fact of prior residence with the existence of a permanent right to housing.<\/p>\n
**3. Court Decision:**
\nThe Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision, whereby it fully dismissed the former nun\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n
In this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous position set forth by the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court on June 12, 2023, clarifying the limits of the jurisdiction of national courts in disputes concerning the internal life of religious organizations and their property.<\/p>\n