No trade unions for clergy if the Archbishop says no, rules European Court

1 August 2013 by

priestSindacutul ‘Pastorul Cel Bun’ v. Romania [2013] ECHR 646 – read judgment here.

The Orthodox Archbishop of Craiova in Romania, that is, not the Archbishop of Canterbury. The European Court of Human Rights recently handed down an interesting ruling on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) that could also have more far-reaching consequences for the application of Article 9 (freedom of religion).

The Grand Chamber, overruling the earlier decision of the Third Section, held by a majority that it was not a breach of the right to freedom of association for the Romanian Government to refuse to register a trade union formed by a group of Orthodox priests, after the Archbishop and Holy Synod (the governing body of the Romanian Orthodox Church) had decided formal trade unions should not be allowed within the church.

In 2008 thirty-two Orthodox priests decided to form a trade union called ‘Pastorul Cel Bun’ (the Good Shepherd), which had similar aims to secular trade unions, such as to promote the members’ interests and take legal action to defend their employment rights. However, the relevant church statute barred priests from taking part in civil legal proceedings without the Archbishop’s prior written permission (presumably because the Bible says it is a very bad idea for Christians to sue each other).


The thirty-two priests did not ask the Archbishop for permission before setting up the trade union. As a result, when they tried to register it formally with the Romanian Government, the Archbishop successfully appealed the court’s decision to grant registration and the trade union was not allowed to exist.

The Church already allowed clergy and staff to set up associations (in fact some of the priests involved in Pastorul Cel Bun set up such an association instead in 2010 with the approval of the Archbishop, who even offered them premises to use as their headquarters). However, the Archbishop argued that the emergence of a more formal trade union within the structure of the Church would seriously imperil the freedom of religious denominations to organise themselves in accordance with their own traditions and teaching. The effect of registering the trade union was to add a new legal institution to the existing Church institutions without the hierarchy’s permission, which jeopardised the autonomy of religious communities.


Some (but not all) of the priests appealed this decision to the European Court. Their complaint was upheld by the Chamber, but the Romanian Government appealed to the Grand Chamber. The Grand Chamber held by a majority of 11 to 6 that there was no breach of Article 11. It emphasised that because the case concerned the Orthodox Church, Article 9 was of considerable importance, and set out the following principles (emphasis added):

Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of Article 11, which safeguards associations against unjustified State interference. Seen from this perspective, the right of believers to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function peacefully, free from arbitrary State intervention. The autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords. It directly concerns not only the organisation of these communities as such but also the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion by all their active members. Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article 9, all other aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable…

In accordance with the principle of autonomy, the State is prohibited from obliging a religious community to admit new members or to exclude existing ones. Similarly, Article 9 of the Convention does not guarantee any right to dissent within a religious body; in the event of a disagreement over matters of doctrine or organisation between a religious community and one of its members, the individual’s freedom of religion is exercised through his freedom to leave the community…

Lastly, where questions concerning the relationship between the State and religions are at stake, on which opinion in a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the national decision-making body must be given special importance. This will be the case in particular where practice in European States is characterised by a wide variety of constitutional models governing relations between the State and religious denominations.

In the light of this, the Grand Chamber held that although there was an interference with the priests’ right to freedom of association, this interference was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of others, specifically the Article 9 rights of the Romanian Orthodox Church. It found that religious communities are entitled to their own opinion of any collective activities of their members and that in principle this opinion must be respected by the national authorities, concluding that “it is not the task of the national authorities to act as the arbiter between religious communities and the various dissident factions that exist or may emerge within them.” On that basis, the Romanian Government’s decision not to register the trade union, and in effect to decline to get involved, was a valid one.


This judgment is a strong indication that the European Court encourages a very ‘hands-off’ approach by the State to the internal workings of religious organisations. Although there are several references to the wide margin of appreciation because of the different settlements between religions and the State in various European countries, the general feel of this ruling is that the State is best to keep well away from disagreements within religious bodies.

That said, there is one passage of the judgment which seems to run contrary to this. The Grand Chamber stated that “a mere allegation by a religious community that there is an actual or potential threat to its autonomy is not sufficient” and that the national courts must conduct “an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the case and a thorough balancing exercise between the competing interests” to ensure that the interference with freedom of association does not go beyond what is necessary. It is not exactly clear how States are supposed to not get involved, on the one hand, and conduct an ‘in-depth examination’, on the other.

The inner workings of the Romanian Orthodox Church may seem a long way from the UK, but in fact the issues have arisen closer to home recently. Last year’s furore over how the Church of England is going to ordain women bishops led to some threats from MPs that Parliament would step in and force the Church to do it in a particular way if it couldn’t agree. In the light of this ruling, they would perhaps be wiser to leave it to the Church to sort itself out.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. Jenny says:

    Is the Pope a law unto himself (blames his god) and how can that be in the 21st century, and other Churches/religions too? I can’t see why certain groups are above the law (and are treated differently and more favourably) just because they believe in a ‘good’ Mr Nobody and his imaginary friends, son or mother. All main religions discriminate against women and gay people, some mutilate boys, apparently this is all OK because the invisible man (never a woman) in the sky (or ‘everywhere’ as some say) says they must. One law fo all? Not on your nelly. Provide the evidence please for how this god-person would punish breaches of his laws (all man-made though third parties via hearsay apparently) which are incompatible with our laws including the Human Rights Act and Equality Act and our and our children’s most fundamental rights; is he acting ultra vires? I’m waiting…

  2. John Allman says:

    “The thirty-two priests did not ask the Archbishop for permission before setting up the trade union. As a result, when they tried to register it formally with the Romanian Government, the Archbishop successfully appealed the court’s decision to grant registration and the trade union was not allowed to exist.”

    Why isn’t legislation that declares that a trade union has to be registered formally with the government in order to be “allowed to exist” a violation of Article 11?

  3. Jonathan says:

    I wonder whether the decision by the the ECtHR would have been different if the case had been brought within a context of a Church’s blatent disregard for agreed secular employment norms (eg minimum wage, health and safety etc), for which the proposed Trades Union was a solution adopted by the priests. This is the sort of context in which priests and ministers in the UK have got involved with the likes of UNITE and others.

    Part of the point of Trades Unions is to help protect its members against abuses that could amount to discrimination (eg in matters of pay) or to risks to life and limb (eg not repairing those rickerty old bell towers). Could Article 9 really be said to be more important when balanced against these ‘higher order’ rights? It is one thing to be able to dismiss a priest for not conforming to the agreed doctrimes or practices of the denomination, where Article 9 can be said to be the most important consideration, and quite another to prevent the formation of a Trades Union that is there to protect its members against dismissal on more spurious grounds.

    Declining any secular legal oversight of the practices of religious faiths or denominations can lead to rights abuses that are as serious as any committed by large and powerful organisations. I fear the ECtHR may have painted itself into a corner should it have to deal with more agregious rights abuses by religious orgnisations in the future.

  4. Craig Nelson says:

    Very interesting and worth a read. I’m less sure about applicability to women bishops however. I sincerely doubt that Parliament will step in and legislate the matter – that is a kind of nuclear option that is held in abeyance but very unlikely to be utilised.

    The women bishops issue is less relevant because the CofE being established, Parliament does have a role in governance. Also in the CofE there is no doctrinal bar against women bishops that having been supported by General Synod and the House of Bishops (and in particular the two Archbishops).

    Where I do see interest however is an indication of how the ECtHR would approach any attempt to unpick the so called quad lock in respect of same sex marriages. I see in this ruling that in so far as possible churches should be left independent from the State in their decision making (churches cannot be forced to marry couples against their teachings) and the national authority should be respected in its ‘balancing exercise (Parliament passing the legislation enshrining the quad lock and presumably domestic courts’ jurisprudence having heard any putative challenges against the law).

    The ECtHR would clearly wish for churches to be protected against any requirement to perform same sex marriages where it is against their teaching and is going to be extremely reticent against interfering with Parliament and domestic courts in this matter (quite rightly so in my view).

    1. Theo Hopkins says:

      That the ECtHR could enforce gay marriage has always been, in my mind, a bit of what-iffery of those agaist gay marriage, and for ukip, a purely opportunistic paper tiger to scare their membership and supporters.

      1. Craig Nelson says:

        Yes you’re right but there’s never been a lack of paranoid people predicting some sort of challenge. The Court’s case law on this is as clear as clear can be but this case covers the angle of what to do with dissenting adherents which clarifies beyond doubt.

  5. Theo Hopkins says:

    What a relief that there is now at least one ECtHR case that will be most unlikely to raise the bile of the Daily Mail edtorial and columnist staff. Yet somehow, I don’t think that the Mail will be upset that it may inhibit the PC feminist wing of the CofE from imposing women priests on core traditional British Christian values.
    And thanks whoever writes this blog for highlighting the case; if I hadn’t read it here I would probably never have read it.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: