Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:02:36.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Church Autonomy in the European Court of Human Rights—Recent Developments in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Gerhard Robbers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Court of Human Rights is currently considering several German cases on the autonomy of religious organizations or churches within secular German labor law and resulting conflict resolution issues that arise within religious communities. In the past, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently underlined the importance of church autonomy, relying on the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 9 guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

  2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Implementing these provisions in the context of religious autonomy, the Court has critically noted:

[T]he autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is, thus, an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords.… The right [of religious communities] to an autonomous existence is at the very heart of the guarantees in Article 9.

Type
Aals Symposium
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , 2010 , pp. 281 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas v. Austria, App. No. 40825/98, §§ 78-79 (2008); Hasan & Chaush v. Bulg., App. No. 30985/96, § 62 (2000).

2. Immediately before publication of this article, Obst v. Germany and Schiith v. Germany were decided by the European Court of Humans Rights on September 23, 2010; in Obst, no violation of the Convention was found, while in the case of Schüth a violation of Article 8—privacy-was found.

3. WRV=Weimarer Reichsverfassung (Weimar Constitution, Constitution of the German Reich of Aug. 14, 1919); GG=Grundgesetz (Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany of May 23, 1949). Article 140 GG has incorporated the “church articles” (Article 136, 137, 138, 139 & 141) of the 1919 Weimar Constitution into the 1949 Basic Law, which is the current German constitution; these articles, while formally remaining a distinct body of norms, form an integral part of the Basic Law. They are cited as “Article … WRV in conjunction with Article 140 GG.” The legal situation is very much like the incorporation of the French 1789 Declaration of Human Rights into the current French constitution.

4. Art. 137, § 3 WRV in conjunction with Art. 140 GG.

5. Cf. Robbers, Gerhard, State and Church in Germany, in State and Church in the European Union 82 (Robbers, Gerhard ed., 2d ed., Nomos 2005)Google Scholar.

6. The list of given examples, though it covers a wide range of activities, should not be taken to suggest that the churches are restricted in operating beyond these defined areas.

7. The existence of a state church has been abrogated by the 1919 Weimar Constitution; Art. 137, § 1 WRV in conjunction with Art. 140 GG states: “There shall be no state church.”

8. Dirk Ehlers, Art. 140 note 6, in Sachs, , Grundgesetz. Kommentar (5th ed. 2009)Google Scholar.

9. Art. 137 §§ 4 & 5, WRV in conjunction with Art. 140 GG.

10. BVerfG June 4,1985, BVerfGE 70, 138, 162.

11. BVerfG Mar. 25, 1980, BVerfGE 53, 366 et seq.; BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138, 162 with further references.

12. BVerfG Oct. 11, 1977, BVerfGE 46, 73.

13. E.g. BVerfG Oct. 16, 1968, BVerfGE 24, 236, 247; BVerfG Dec. 19, 2000, BVerfGE 102, 370, 394.

14. Caritas and Diakonie are institutions of the churches that provide a very large variety of social services such as hospitals, homes for the elderly, or care for handicapped persons. http://www.caritas.de/, http://www.diakonie.de/index.htm, July 21, 2010.

15. These articles combined provide for the Sozialstaatsprinzip (principle of a social state) in Germany. For an English version of the Basic Law, please see the website of the Bundestag: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm (last visited Sept. 1, 2010). For specifics on the Sozialstaatsprinzip, see Robbers, Gerhard, Art. 20 GG in Bonner Kommentar Grundgesetz notes 1491 et seq. (142d ed., C.F. Müller 10 2009)Google Scholar.

16. BVerfG Sept. 21, 1976, BVerfGE 42, 312, 334; BVerfG Dec. 13, 1983, BVerfGE 66, 1, 20.

17. BVerfG Mar. 25, 1980, BVerfGE 53, 366, 404; BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138, 167; BVerfG May 14, 1986, BVerfGE 72, 278, 289; Hesse, Konrad, Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Kirchen und Religionsgemeinschaften, in vol. 1 of Handbuch des Staatskirchenrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 554 (Listl, Joseph & Pirson, Dietrich eds., 2d ed., Duncker & Humblot 1994)Google Scholar; Campenhausen, Axel Freiherr von & Wall, Heinrich de, Staatskirchenrecht 109 (4th ed., C.H. Beck 2006)Google Scholar.

18. Hollerbach, Alexander, “Grundlagen des Staatskirchenrechts” in Freiheitsrechte, vol. 6Google Scholar of Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland § 138 n. 118 (Isensee, Josef & Kirchhof, Paul eds., 2d ed., C.F. Müller Juristischer Verlag 2001)Google Scholar; von Campenhausen & Heinrich de Wall, supra note 16; see also Hesse, Konrad, Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Kirchen und Religionsgemeinschaften, in vol. 1 of Handbuch des Staatskirchenrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 521 (Listl, Joseph & Pirson, Ernst Friesenhan Dietrich eds., 2d ed., Duncker & Humblot 1994)Google Scholar.

19. von Campenhausen & Heinrich de Wall, supra note 16.

20. BVerfG Mar. 25, 1980, BVerfGE 53, 366, 400 et seq.; BVerfG Dec. 13, 1983, BVerfGE 66, 1, 22; BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138, 167; BVerfG May 14, 1986, BVerfGE 72, 278, 289; von Campenhausen & Heinrich de Wall, supra note 16; Classen, Claus Dieter, Religionsrecht 115 (Mohr Siebeck 2006)Google Scholar; Jeand'Heur, Bernd & Korioth, Stefan, Grundzüge des Staatskirchenrechts n. 203 (Boorberg 2000)Google Scholar.

21. BVerfG Feb. 17, 1965, BVerfGE 18, 385, 387.

22. BVerfG Sept. 21,1976, BVerfGE 42, 312, 334.

23. E.g. BAG Sept. 16, 2004, KirchE 46, 126 (Termination of labor contract by the Catholic Church because employee entered a new marriage after divorce).

24. Cf. VGH Mannheim May 26, 2003, KirchE 43, 286 (Termination of contract by church because the employee left the church in a civil act valid as determined by the Higher Administrative Court); BAG Jan. 15, 1986, KirchE 24, 7 (Termination of contract by church because employee publicly stated support for abortion valid as determined by the Federal Labour Court).

25. Cf. BVerfG June 4,1985, BVerfGE 70, 138.

26. See BVerfG Mar. 25, 1980, BVerfGE § 53, 366, 400.

27. Cf. Robbers, Gerhard, Streik in der Kirche (Nomos Verlag 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Bischöfe, Die Deutschen, Erklärung der deutschen Bischöfe zum kirchlichen Dienst, Grundordnung des kirchlichen Dienstes im Rahmen kirchlicher Arbeitsverhältnisse vom 22. September 1993, in Die Deutschen Bischöfe 11 (Bischofskonferenz, Sekretariat der Deutschen ed., vol. 51, 1993, 11th ed., 2008), available at http://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/veroeffentlichungen/deutsche-bischoefe/DB051-11.Auflage.pdf, 07 19, 2010Google Scholar.

29. BVerfG Feb. 17, 1981, BVerfGE 57, 220.

30. Section 118 Works Council Constitution Act (BetrVG); § 1 s. 4 Act on Co-Determination of Employees (MitbestG).

31. That is freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films.

32. See, e.g., Ecclesiastical Act on Employee Representation in the Evangelical Church in Germany (MVG EKD); see also Baumann-Czichon, Bernhardet al., Mitarbeitervertretungsgesetz der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (3d ed., Kellner 2009)Google Scholar; for the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, see Ecclesiastical Act regarding the constitution of Employee representation bodies in the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland (Kirchengesetz über die Bildung von Mitarbeitervertretungen in kirchlichen Dienststellen in der Evangelischen Kirche im Rheinland—MVG-EKiR) of Jan. 12, 1994, http://www.ekir.de/ekir/671_14206.php; for the Roman Catholic Church, see “Erklärung der deutschen Bischöfe zum kirchlichen Dienst,” Directive of the Clerical Service within Clerical Employment (GO kirchArb), also available at Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz (ed.), http://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/veroeffentlichungen/deutsche-bischoefe/ DB051-11.Auflage.pdf, Nov. 9, 2009.

33. See Robbers, supra note 26.

34. See, e.g., §§ 29-37 Ordnung für die Mitarbeitervertretungen im Bistum Mainz (KODA- Ordnung Mainz), which provide for rights of consultation in cases such as termination of contract, rights of suggestion in case of labor regulations et al., available at http://downloads.bistummainz.de/19/1891/1/24219007922822319716.pdf (last visited July 19, 2010.

35. Cf. BVerfG 4 June 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138.

36. Section 626 BGB (Termination without notice for a compelling reason):

(1) The employment relationship may be terminated by either party to the contract for a compelling reason without complying with a notice period if facts are present on the basis of which the party giving notice cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship to the end of the notice period or to the agreed end of the employment relationship, taking all circumstances of the individual case into account and weighing the interests of both parties to the contract.

(2) Notice of termination may only be given within two weeks. The notice period commences with the date on which the person entitled to give notice obtains knowledge of facts conclusive for the notice of termination. The party giving notice must notify the other party, on demand, of the reason for notice of termination without undue delay in writing.).

37. Section 1 KSchG (Socially unjustified terminations):

Termination of a labour relationship vis à vis an employee whose labour relationship has existed within the same plant or enterprise without interruption for more than six months is legally invalid when it is socially unjustified.

A termination is socially unjustified when it is not conditioned by reasons that lie within the person or within the conduct of the employee or by compelling operational needs which are contrary to a continuation of the employment of the employee in this plant. The termination is also socially unjustified if…

§§ 138 and 242 BGB provide for further detailed protection against unjustified terminations:

§ 138 (Legal transaction contrary to public policy; usury):

(1) A legal transaction which is contrary to public policy is void.

(2) In particular, a legal transaction is void by which a person, by exploiting the predicament, inexperience, lack of sound judgment or considerable weakness of will of another, causes himself or a third party, in exchange for an act of performance, to be promised or granted pecuniary advantages which are clearly disproportionate to the performance.

§ 242 (Performance in good faith):

An obligor has a duty to perform according to the requirements of good faith, taking customary practice into consideration.

38. Article 4 GG and Art. 140 GG in conjunction with Art. 137 § 3 WRV provides these protections.

39. BVerfG Dec. 13, 1983, BVerfGE 66, 1, 22; BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138, 167; BVerfG May 14, 1986, BVerfGE 72, 278, 189.

40. EComHR, Rommelfanger v. F.R.G., Sept. 6, 1989, App. No. 12242/86; BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138.

41. BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138.

42. Id.

43. EComHR, Rommelfanger v. F.R.G., Sept. 6, 1989, App. No. 12242/86; BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138.

44. EComHR, Rommelfanger v. F.R.G., App. No. 12242/86 (1989).

45. Id.

46. BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70,138, 162.

47. Id.

48. EComHR, Rommelfanger v. F.R.G., App. No. 12242/86 (1989); BVerfG June 4, 1985, BVerfGE 70, 138.

49. See http.//www.ekd.de/download/loyalitaetsrichtlinie.pdf visited July 20, 2010).

50. Section 2 Richtlinie des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland nach Art. 9 uchst. b Grundordnung über die Anforderungen der privatrechtlichen beruflichen Mitarbeit in der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland und des Diakonischen Werkes, (2005), http://www.ekd.de/download/loyalitaetsrichtlinie.pdf (last visited July 20, 2010).

51. Section 3 Richtlinie des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland nach Art. 9 uchst. b Grundordnung über die Anforderungen der privatrechtlichen beruflichen Mitarbeit in der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland und des Diakonischen Werkes, (2005), http://www.ekd.de/download/loyalitaetsrichtlinie.pdf, July 20, 2010.

52. The service contract regulation of the EKD (DVO.EKD) stipulates in its § 2:

Church service is determined by the assignment to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in words and deeds. The diaconical service is an expression of the life and the essence of the Evangelical Church. The employees have to act in accordance with this assignment in their work and in their private life. Employment practice of the EKD itself is consistent. Only members of the Evangelical Church, and in few exceptions also members of other Christian Churches, are employed.

53. Art. 89, § 5. Members of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE)—Leuenberg Church Fellowship (a community of now 105 Protestant Churches throughout Europe)—have the same status as members of the Land Church for these purposes.

54. Verwaltungsvorschrift zur Durchführung der Rahmenordnung (VV-RO EKiBa) [Administrative Regulation on the Implementation of the Framework of Regulations] of Oct.24. 1995 (GVB1. S. 227), http://www.ekiba.de/mav/vv-ro.htm.

55. Id.

56. See Id.

57. Kirchengesetz der Konföderation evangelischer Kirchen in Niedersachsen über die Rechtsstellung der Mitarbeiter und Mitarbeiterinnen [Ecclesiastical Act of the Confederation of Protestant Churches in Lower Saxony on the legal position of employees] (MG EvKirNDS), available at Evangelisch-lutherische Landeskirche Hannovers (ed.), “Rechtssammlung,” http://rechtssammlung-online.evlka.de/Dienst%26Arbeitsrecht/41_Mitarbeiterrecht/41_A/index.jsp#GTMARK0, Sept. 17, 2009.

58. Evangelical Lutheran Land Church in Braunschweig (Evangelisch-lutherische Landeskirche in Braunschweig); Evangelical Lutheran Land Church of Hannover (Evangelisch- lutherische Landeskirche Hannovers); Evangelical Lutheran Church in Oldenburg (Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Oldenburg); Evangelical Reformed Church, Leer (Evangelisch-reformierte Kirche, Leer); Evangelical Lutheran Land Church Schaumburg-Lippe (Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Schaumburg-Lippe).

59. This Employees Law States in its § 1:

The church employee is in his official activity and in his conduct of life obliged by the mission of the Lord to give witness of the Gospel in word and deed. This obligation forms the basis of the duties and rights of employer, employing institutions and employees and also governs their cooperation in determining and fulfilling these duties and rights. Employer, employing institutions and employees are bound by the confession and the law of the participating churches.

60. Directive of the Clerical Service within Clerical Employment (GO kirchArb), http://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/VDD/db051_11_auflage.pdf (last visited July 20, 2010).

61. GO kirchArb Article 2 section 3.

62. Id. at Art. 5.

63. See c. 1364 in conjunction with c. 751 Corpus Iuris Canonici (CIC); c. 1367 CIC; c. 1369 CIC;cc. 1373, 1374 CIC.

64. See supra note 16.

65. Federal Constitutional Court Act BVerfGG 31, 1.

66. BVerfG (K) Dec. 9, 2008, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 62 (2009) 1195Google Scholar; this is the remand of Reuter v. Germany citation before the European Court of Human Rights referred to above.

67. Id.

68. BVerfG (K) Dec. 9, 2008, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 62 (2009): 1195 et seq. Id.

69. See also BVerfG 17 May 1965, BVerfGE 18, 385, 386.

70. BVerfG (K) Dec. 9, 2008, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 62 (2009) 1195.

71. See also id. at 387. The Federal Constitutional Court held that Art. 33 § 5 GG which provides for certain structures in state civil service, does not apply in internal matters of religious communities even when they have the status of public law corporations. Also, constitutional state provisions about the civil service do not apply to the civil service of religious communities.

72. See also BVerfG Feb. 17, 1965, BVerfGE 18, 385, 386; consistent practice: BVerfG Sept. 21, 1976, BVerfGE 42, 312, 334; BVerfG Dec. 13, 1983, BVerfGE 66, 1, 20; BVerfG May 14, 1986, BVerfGE 72, 278, 289; BVerfG Jan. 27, 2004, BVerfGE 111, 1, 5; BVerfG June 1, 1983, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 36 (1983): 2569Google Scholar; BVerfG July 5, 1983, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 36 (1983): 2569Google Scholar; BGH Dec. 18, 1954, BGHZ 12, 321, 325; BGH Mar. 16, 1961, BGHZ 34, 372, 373; BGH Sept. 19, 1966, BGHZ 46, 96, 99; BVerwG Oct. 27, 1966, BVerwGE 25, 226, 229; BVerwG Dec. 15,1967, BVerwGE 28, 345, 347; BVerwG Oct. 25, 1968, BVerwGE 30, 326, 327; BVerwG Nov. 2, 1982, BVerwGE 66, 241, 244; BVerwG Apr. 28, 1994, BVerwGE 95, 379, 380; BVerwG Oct. 30, 2002, BVerwGE 117, 145, 147; BVerwG Nov. 25, 1982, Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 28 (1983): 421, 424Google Scholar; BVerwG Nov. 20, 1992, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 12 (1993): 672Google Scholar; BAG Apr. 25, 1978, BAGE 30, 247, 252; BAG Mar. 11, 1986, BAGE §§ 51, 238, 244; BAG Feb. 7, 1990, BAGE 64, 131, 135; OVG Lower Saxony Feb. 24, 1997, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 51 3070, 3071 (1998)Google Scholar; VGH Hesse Nov. 6, 2002, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 56, 256 (2003)Google Scholar; OVG Rhineland-Palatinate July 15, 2004, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 57, 3731(2004)Google Scholar; VG Stuttgart July 14, 2005, 17 K 1515/05; VGH Baden-Württemberg, Oct. 13, 2005, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 59, 177 (2006)Google Scholar; VG Hannover Mar. 8, 2006, Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 51, 602, 603 (2006)Google Scholar.

73. See also Rüfner, Wolfgang, “Zuständigkeit staatlicher Gerichte in kirchlichen Angelegenheiten,” in vol. 2 of Handbuch des Staatskirchenrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1081 et seq. (Listl, Joseph & Pirson, Dietrich eds., 2d ed., Duncker & Humblot 1995)Google Scholar; Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard, in Maunz-Dürig, Grundgesetz. Kommentar, ed. Herzog, Roman, Scholz, Rupert, Herdegen, Matthias & Klein, Hans H., 56th update 2009, Art. 19 Abs. 4 n. 115Google Scholar; Grzeszick, Bernd, Der Rechtsschutz in Kirchensachen als Teil des kirchlichen Selbstbestimmungsrechts, 129 Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts 168, 183, 204 (2004)Google Scholar; Kazele, Norbert, Ausgewählte Fragen des Staatskirchenrechts, 96 Verwaltungsarchiv 557, 564 (2005)Google Scholar.

74. As stated above, the provision reads: “Religious societies shall regulate and administer their affairs independently within the limits of the law that applies to all. They shall confer their offices without the participation of the state or the civil community.” Art. 137 § 3 WRV.

75. The provision reads: “Neither the enjoyment of civil and political rights, nor eligibility for public office, nor rights acquired in the public service shall be dependent upon religious affiliation. No one may be disadvantaged by reason of adherence or non-adherence to a particular religious denomination or philosophical creed.”

76. BVerfG (K) Dec. 9, 2008, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 62, 1195 (2009). Just because all these statements of the Federal Constitutional Court concerning the substantive law are merely obiter dicta, this does not mean that the general prohibition against arbitrary action should apply within religious communities. What exactly arbitrariness means depends on different reasons in the secular and in the religious fields; what can be arbitrary in secular matters can be well founded in religious ones.

77. BGH Mar. 28, 2003, BGHZ 154, 306.

78. BVerfG (K) Dec. 9, 2008, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 124, 238 (2009).

79. BGH Mar. 28, 2003, BGHZ 154, 306.

80. Id.

81. Id.

82. See § 138 Civil Code and requirement that government decisions consider ordre public as provided for in Article 6, Introductory Law of the Civil Code (EGBGB).

83. BGH Mar. 28, 2003, BGHZ 154, 306.

84. Id.; Grzeszick, Bernd, Der Rechtsschutz in Kirchensachen als Teil des kirchlichen Selbstbestimmungsrechts, 129 Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts 168, 203 (2004)Google Scholar.

85. Cf. Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russ., App. No. 72881/01, § 92 (2006); Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia & Others v. Mold., App. No. 45701/99, § 116 (2001); Manoussakis v. Greece, App. No. 18748/91, § 47 (1996).

86. Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas v. Austria, App. No. 40825/98, §§ 78-79 (2008); Hasan & Chaush v. Bulg., App. No. 30985/96, § 62 (2000) (emphasis added); see also Strasbourg Consortium: Freedom of Conscience and Religion at the European Court of Human Rights, www.strasbourgconsortium.org/religious_autonomy_essays (collecting authorities) (last visited Oct. 1, 2010)Google Scholar.

87. Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russ., § 92 (2006); Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia & Others v. Mold., § 117 (2001).

88. Cf. Carrillo & Burgoa v. Spain, App. No. 11142/84 (1986); Rommelfanger v. F.R.G., 12242/86) (1989) (Commission; Marckx v. Belg., App. No. 6833/74, § 31 (1979); X & Y v. the Neth., App. No. 8978/80, § 23 (1985); Abdulaziz, Cabales & Balkandali v. U.K., App. No. 9214/80, App. No. 9473/81, App. No. 9474/81, § 67 (1985); Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, App. No. 10126/82, § 32 (1988).

89. Vogt v. F.R.G., App. No. 17851/91, § 48 (1995); Rekvényi v. Hung., App. No. 25390/94, § 34 (1999); Steel & Others v. U.K., App. No. 24838/94, §§ 71-77 (1998); Hashman & Harrup v. U.K., App. No. 25594/94, §§ 31-41 (1999).

90. Vogt v. F.R.G., App. No. 17851/91, § 48 (1995).

91. Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia & Others v. Mold., § 118 (2001).

92. Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russ., App. No. 18147/02, § 91 (2007); Id. at § 90—as to standards for registration.

93. Cf. Hokkanen v. Fin., § 55 (1994); Bronda v. Italy, App. No. 22430/93, § 59 (1998); Elsholz v. F.R.G., § 48 (2000).

94. See Athinen v. Fin., App. No. 48907/99, § 38 (2008); Dudová & Duda v. Czech Rep., App. No. 40224/98 (2001); Kohn v. F.R.G., App. No. 47021/99 (2000); Tyler v. U.K., App. No. 21283/93 (1994); Le Compte, Van Leuven & De Meyere v. Belg., App. No. 6878/75 and App. No. 7238/75, § 47 (1981); W. v. U.K., App. No. 9749/82, § 73 (1987); Fayed v. U.K., App. No. 17101/90, § 56 (1994); Masson & Van Zon v. the Neth., App. No. 15346/89 and App. No. 15379/89, § 44 (1995); Balmer-Schafroth & Others v. Switz., App. No. 22110/93, § 32 (1997); Le Calvez v. Fr., App. No. 25554/94, § 56 (1998).

95. See Eva Dudová & Zdeněk Duda v. République tchèque, App. No. 40224/98 (2001).

96. See Kohn v. F.R.G., App. No. 47021/99 (2000); Hasan & Chaush v. Bulg, App. No. 30985/96, § 81-82 (2000).

97. See Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, App. No. 25528/94, § 31 (1997).

98. See Kohn v. F.R.G., App. No. 47021/99 (2000); Hasan & Chaush v. Bulg., App. No. 30985/96, § 81-82 (2000).

99. See Kalaç v. Turk., App. No. 20704/92, § 27 (1997).

100. See Hasan & Chaush v. Bulg., App. No. 30985/96, § 62 (2000); Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia & Others v. Mold., App. No. 45701/99, § 118 (2002).

101. See Osman v. U.K., App. No. 23452/94 § 147 (1998); Fayed v. U.K., App. No. 17101/90, § 65 (1994); Waite & Kennedy v. F.R.G., App. No. 26083/94, § 59 (1999).

102. See Eva Dudová & Zdeněk Duda v. République tchèque, App. No. 40224/98 (2001).

103. See Id.

104. Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting 1986 of Representatives of the Participating States of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Held on the Basis of the Provisions of the Final Act Relating to the Follow-up to the Conference, Vienna 1989, http://www.osce.org/documents/mcs/1986/11/4224_en.pdf (last visited Oct. 1, 2010).

105. Official Journal C 340, P. 0133 (1997).

106. EN Official Journal of the European Union C 115/55 (2008). For additional information, see State and Church in the European Union: In Conjunction With the European Consortium for State and Church Research (Robbers, Gerhard ed., 2d ed., Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft 2005)Google Scholar; Legal Position of Churches and Church Autonomy (Warnink, aH. ed., Peeters Publishers 2001)Google Scholar; Church Autonomy: A Comparative Survey (Robbers, Gerhard ed., Peter Lang Publ'g 2001), available at www.strasbourgconsortium.org/Google Scholar robbers autonomy.

107. Official Journal L 303, P. 0016-0022 (2000).

108. For additional information, see State and Church in the European Union, supra note 105; Legal Position of Churches, supra note 105; Church Autonomy, supra note 105, available at www.strasbourgconsortium.org/robbers_autonomy.

109. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos 483 U.S. 327 (1987).

110. See also Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976)—even if defrocking of a church leader seemed arbitrary, courts must defer to the religious decisions of a hierarchical church; Alicea-Hernandez v. Cath. Bishop of Chi., 320 F.3d 698, 703 (7th Cir. 2003)—rejecting discrimination claim of a communications director who functioned as a “press secretary” for the church; Starkman v. Evans, 198 F.3d 173, 175-76 (5th Cir. 1999)—sustaining termination of choir director at a Methodist church; E.E.O.C. v. Cath. Univ. Am., 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996)—sustaining denial of tenure by a professor at a Catholic University; Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (2006)—summarizing federal case law on church autonomy in religious employment matters.

111. Section 359 Nr. 6 StPO; § 580 Nr. 8 ZPO (Restitutionsklage); § 153 Abs. 1 VwGO iVm § 580 r. 8, § 153 Abs. 2 ZPO; § 79 S. 1 ArbGG iVm § 580 Nr. 8 ZPO; § 179 Abs. 1 SGG iVm § 580 Nr. 8 ZPO; § 134 FGO iVm § 580 Nr. 8 ZPO.

112. See also Rules of Court, Rule 44, as amended by the Court on July 7, 2003: (Third-party intervention)

1. (a) When notice of an application lodged under Article 34 of the Convention is given to the respondent Contracting Party under Rule 54 § 2 (b), a copy of the application shall at the same time be transmitted by the registrar to any other Contracting Party one of whose nationals is an applicant in the case. The Registrar shall similarly notify any such Contracting Party of a decision to hold an oral hearing in the case.

(b) If a Contracting Party wishes to exercise its right under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention to submit written comments or to take part in a hearing, it shall so advise the Registrar in writing not later than twelve weeks after the transmission or notification referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph. Another time limit may be fixed by the President of the Chamber for exceptional reasons.

2. (a) Once notice of an application has been given to the respondent Contracting Party under Rule 51 § 1 or Rule 54 § 2 (b), the President of the Chamber may, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, as provided in Article 36 § 2 of the Convention, invite, or grant leave to, any Contracting Party which is not a party to the proceedings, or any person concerned who is not the applicant, to submit written comments or, in exceptional cases, to take part in a hearing.

(b) Requests for leave for this purpose must be duly reasoned and submitted in writing in one of the official languages as provided in Rule 34 § 4 not later than twelve weeks after notice of the application has been given to the respondent Contracting Party. Another time limit may be fixed by the President of the Chamber for exceptional reasons.

3. (a) In cases to be considered by the Grand Chamber the periods of time prescribed in the preceding paragraphs shall run from the notification to the parties of the decision of the Chamber under Rule 72 § 1 to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber or of the decision of the panel of the Grand Chamber under Rule 73 § 2 to accept a request by a party for referral of the case to the Grand Chamber.

(b) The time-limits laid down in this Rule may exceptionally be extended by the President of the Chamber if sufficient cause is shown.

4. Any invitation or grant of leave referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of this Rule shall be subject to any conditions, including time-limits, set by the President of the Chamber. Where such conditions are not complied with, the President may decide not to include the comments in the case file or to limit participation in the hearing to the extent that he or she considers appropriate.

5. Written comments submitted under this Rule shall be drafted in one of the official languages as provided in Rule 34 § 4. They shall be forwarded by the Registrar to the parties to the case, who shall be entitled, subject to any conditions, including time-limits, set by the President of the Chamber, to file written observations in reply or, where appropriate, to reply at the hearing.

113. Rules of Court, Rule 34 § § 2 and 3.

114. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention (CETS no. 194) Agreement of Madrid (12.V.2009) Open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe signatories to the Convention, in Strasbourg on May 13, 2004. Entry into force June 1, 2010; http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/194.htm (last visited Oct. 1, 2010).

115. Protocol 14: Article 13 of the amending protocol amending Article 36—Third party intervention. This provision originates in an express request from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, (15) supported by the Parliamentary Assembly in its Recommendation 1640 (2004) on the 3rd Annual Report on the Activities of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 2002), adopted on Jan. 26, 2004.

116. Artide 8 Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, Strasbourg, 13.V.2004, amending Article 28 of the Convention; see also Protocol No. 14b is to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS No. 204) (This Protocol shall cease to be in force or applied on a provisional basis as from June 1, 2010, date of entry into force of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention (Article 9)); http.//conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/204.htm.