In February 2007 some of the applicants, Ahmadi Muslims, decided to set up a new religious association, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, to be based in Sandanski: the others joined them subsequently. The first applicant, Mr Metodiev, applied to the district court of Sofia to register the new association under the Religions Act and the court sought the opinion of the Department for Religious Affairs – and denied the application. Continue reading →
In Tonyuk v Ukraine  ECHR 492the applicant, Yustyna Tonyuk, a Ukrainian national born in 1941 and living in Yaremche, in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region, complained about the existence and use of a cemetery that had been created adjacent to her home. Ms Tonyuk had obtained two judgments from the national courts banning the use of the cemetery for future burials on the ground that its proximity to her home was in breach of the applicable sanitary standards. Her house was some ten metres from the cemetery boundary, her yard was separated from the cemetery by a wire mesh fence and the nearest row of graves was about a metre from the fence (some eleven metres from her house) and clearly visible from her yard . Continue reading →
Brexit rumbles on, but perhaps the most important event of the week was the outcome of the Northern Ireland Assembly Election – on which we would not presume to comment…
Son (or more accurately daughter) of Miller?
Gina Miller, who mounted the successful challenge in the Supreme Court to the Prime Minister’s proposal to trigger Article 50 TEU by using the Royal Prerogative, has said that she is looking at launching a new challenge if Parliament is not given a vote on the final terms of Brexit. Speaking to Bloomberg, Ms Miller explained: Continue reading →
An extraordinarily busy week dominated by Brexit – and just how many more times will we find ourselves saying that?
Brexit and the Supreme Court
Although we steadfastly avoided predicting the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal in the Brexit cases, we were not at all surprised either at the result or that it was an 8/3 split decision. We do not intend to add to the already a mass of analysis on the legal blogs by commentators much more expert than we are; they have been summarized by Robert Craig on the Constitutional Law Group site: Miller: An Index of Reports and Commentary. Continue reading →
In 1948, the Greek-Catholic Church of Romania [Biserica Română Unită cu Roma, Greco-Catolică] was dissolved by Nicolai Ceaușescu and its property handed over to the Orthodox Church by decree. After the fall of Ceaușescu in 1989, Legislative Decree No. 126/1990 was passed to provide that the legal status of property that had belonged to the Greek-Catholic Church would be determined by joint commissions made up of representatives of both the Greek-Catholic and Orthodox Churches, taking account of the “wishes of the adherents of the communities which own these properties”. The Decree provided that in the event of disagreement, a party with an interest in bringing proceedings could do so under the ordinary law.
On 1 August 2006 five members of the Anti-Militarist Platform met in front of the Israeli Consulate in Istanbul in support of Israeli conscientious objectors. In the course of the gathering, Mr Savda read out a press statement entitled “We are in solidarity with the Israeli conscientious objectors”. He was arrested and charged and in August 2008 he was sentenced to five months in prison for having incited the population to evade military service by means of a public statement. Continue reading →
A week dominated by Brexit (and just how often will we read that?) – but there was a mixed bag of other news as well…
In the courts this week
The big news in England & Wales has been the hearings in R (Santos and M) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, which began on 13 October before the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales. There is an uncorrected transcript of the proceedings here and a summary by Robert Craig, of the LSE, here. The speculation is that if and when the judgment – whichever way it goes – is appealed, it will go straight to the Supreme Court. (Yesterday, we published the latest instalment in our Brexit Basics coverage.)
In Strasbourg, the Grand Chamber heard argument in Károly Nagyv Hungary (application no. 56665/09). Continue reading →