EGMR: Grand Chamber hearing in a case concerning the claim for the restitution of a place of worship – Lupeni Greek-Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania (application no. 76943/11)

The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing on Wednesday 2 March 2016 at 9.15 a.m. in the case of Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania (application no. 76943/11). The case concerns the claim for the restitution of a place of worship belonging to the Greek-Catholic Church that was transferred to the ownership of the Orthodox Church under the totalitarian regime.

The applicants are the Lupeni Greek-Catholic Parish, the Lugoj Greek-Catholic Diocese and the Lupeni Greek-Catholic Archpriesthood, all of which are situated in Romania. They belong to the Eastern-Rite Catholic (Greek-Catholic or Uniate) Church.

Following the dissolution in 1948 of the Lupeni Greek-Catholic Parish, the Lugoj Greek-Catholic Diocese and the Lupeni Greek-Catholic Archpriesthood, a church and an adjoining courtyard that had belonged to the Lupeni Greek-Catholic Parish were transferred in 1967 to the ownership of the Romanian Orthodox Church. The Lupeni Greek-Catholic Parish was legally re-established on 12 August 1996; it comes under the authority of the Lugoj Greek-Catholic Diocese (the second applicant) and the Lupeni Greek-Catholic Archpriesthood (the third applicant).

After the fall of the communist regime in 1989, legislation was passed in Romania (Legislative Decree no. 126/1990, as amended by Law no. 182/2005, hereafter the “special law”) specifying that the legal situation of property which had belonged to the Greek-Catholic parishes and been transferred to the ownership of the Orthodox Church would be decided by joint committees made up of representatives of both denominations, who were to take into account “the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of these properties”. In the event of disagreement, the party with an interest entitling it to bring proceedings could do so under ordinary law.

In 2001 the applicants brought proceedings to obtain the return of the church and the adjoining courtyard.

The county court granted the applicants’ action for recovery of possession in 2009, but it was dismissed by the court of appeal in 2010. By a final judgment of 15 June 2011, the High Court of Cassation and Justice confirmed the court of appeal’s judgment, finding that it had correctly applied the special law and its criterion concerning the wishes of the (mostly Orthodox) adherents of the community in possession of the property, while at the same time drawing attention to irregularities in the reasoning of the first-instance court, which had merely compared the title deeds and disregarded the special law.

Complaining of a refusal by the Romanian courts to adjudicate under ordinary law on what they consider to be their ownership rights over a religious building, the applicants complain in particular of an infringement of their right of access to a court and of the principle of legal certainty as protected by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the same Article, they also complain about the length of the procedure for restitution of the church in question. Lastly, they allege that there was an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, protected by Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, a breach of their freedom of religion (Article 9) and a violation of the prohibition on discrimination (Article 14).


The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 December 2011. In its Chamber judgment of 19 May 2015, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of access to a court and the question of legal certainty, a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the length of the proceedings, and no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. On 19 October 2015 the Grand Chamber panel of five judges accepted the applicants’ request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber.

Composition of the Court

The case will be heard by a Grand Chamber, composed as follows:

Guido Raimondi (Italy), President,

András Sajó (Hungary),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),
Angelika Nußberger (Germany),
George Nicolaou (Cyprus),
Kristina Pardalos (San Marino),
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal),
Egidijus Kūris (Lithuania),
Robert Spano (Iceland),
Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
Carlo Ranzoni (Liechtenstein),
Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),
Georges Ravarani (Luxembourg),
Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),
Pauliine Koskelo (Finland), judges,

Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),
Dmitry Dedov (Russia),
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra),

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), substitute judges,

and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Registrar for the Grand Chamber.

Representatives of the parties


Catrinel Brumar, Agent,

Oana Ezer, Ioana Dumitriu and Cezar Păvălaşcu, Advisers


Diana-Olivia Hatneanu, Counsel

Press release ECHR 83 (2016) 02/03/2016

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: