Luoghi di culto

La mancanza di un luogo di culto per esercitare regolarmente il
proprio credo si riflette direttamente sulla libertà religiosa,
per la cui piena realizzazione ha un grande rilievo la
possibilità di svolgere cerimonie in luoghi in cui i fedeli
possano riunirsi collettivamente. La normativa urbanistica in esame e
la sua applicazione – secondo la Corte adita – di fatto impediscono a
piccole comunità di potere rispettare le condizioni per
costruire un luogo di culto. Di qui la constatazione
dell'ingerenza che, pur perseguendo un fine in sè
legittimo, tra cui la sicurezza nazionale, è sproporzionata e
non necessaria in una società democratica e pluralista.

The case concerned an action to recover possession of property which
had been confiscated from the Parish when the communist regime
was established in 1948. Prior to 1948 the Greek-Catholic
parishes had possessed a range of properties, lands and
buildings. The Uniate denomination was dissolved in 1948 and the
property of the Greek-Catholic Church was transferred to the
State, apart from parish property, which was transferred to the
Orthodox Church. The Uniate denomination was officially
recognised after the fall of the communist regime in December
1989. As regards the legal situation of the former property of the
Uniate parishes, a section of the Legislative Decree laid down
that it should be adjudicated by joint commissions
of representatives of the clergy of both denominations, and that
in reaching their decisions the commissions should take account
of “the wishes of the adherents of the communities to whom
the properties belong”. In the event of disagreement
between the clerical representatives, the party interested in
taking legal action could bring proceedings under ordinary domestic
law. Between 1998 and 2002 several unproductive meetings were
held by representatives of the Siseşti Parish Eastern-Rite
Catholic Church and Orthodox Church representatives. On 24 February
2004 the applicant’s action was initially dismissed under a
final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice on the ground that
the commission had not yet assessed the legal situation of the
property in issue and that, moreover, part of that property came
under special legislation. In April 2005 the applicant parish
lodged a fresh claim with the Regional Court to recover possession of
the property, over which it claimed rightful ownership. That
Court dismissed that claim. The Court of Appeal referred the case
back. The court adjourned its examination of the case from 2 June 2008
to 27 February 2009 on the ground that an objection as regards
constitutionality had been transmitted to the Constitutional
Court. On 21 September 2011 the court ordered the restitution of the
church and the land at issue. The appeals lodged by both parties
were dismissed. By judgment of 21 November 2012 the High Court
upheld the decisions given. Relying in particular on Article 6
§ 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) the
applicant notably complained about the length of the proceedings
concerning their action to recover possession of their places of
worship. [Press Release]

In
OLIR.it: Double tableau consolide des dispositionis modifiees (pp.
15-22)

[La Redazione di OLIR.it ringrazia per la segnalazione del documento
Alessandro Tira, Università degli Studi di Milano]

L'art. 71, comma 1, lett. c – bis, della L.R. 11 marzo 2005 n. 12,
così come inserito dall'art. 12 della L.R. 21 febbraio 2011
n. 3, ha ricondotto nella categoria delle "attrezzature di
interesse comune per servizi religiosi… gli immobili (comunque)
destinati a sedi di associazioni, società o comunità di
persone in qualsiasi forma costituite, le cui finalità
statutarie o aggregative siano da ricondurre alla religione,
all'esercizio del culto o alla professione religiosa quali sale di
preghiera, scuole di religione o centri culturali". In tale
contesto, pertanto, la trasformazione – inoppugnabilmente avvenuta nel
caso di specie – del preesistente "negozio" in luogo
preminentemente adibito a culto non può che richiedere, anche
per la concomitantemente contestata realizzazione al piano
seminterrato di un tavolato interno, il rilascio del titolo edilizio
abilitante al mutamento della destinazione d'uso dei relativi
locali.

The question was whether the Appellants’ church was a
“place of meeting for religious worship”. “Religious
worship” includes “religious services”. Since the
Church of Scientology held religious services, it follows that its
church is a “place of meeting for religious worship”, and
the Registrar General is ordered to record it as such.
[www.supremecourt.gov.uk – press summary]