On 17 June 2008, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is going to consider the complaint of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church (PAOC) versus Poland regarding its right to property to nationalized Post-Uniate places of worship. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, according to which this is one of the few inter-denominational conflicts in present-day Poland, is involved in the case.(14-MAR-08)

Written by Agnieszka Chmielecka
Image by Wikipedia
Source: PAP


The conflict between the PAOC and the Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholic Church (Uniate rite) has carried on with regard to the ownership of 24 nationalized Post-Unite places of worship in the Podkarpacie region, which were renovated after World War II and are being used by members of the Orthodox Church. The Church however did not become the owner of this property, as was the case with other Churches by acts regulating their legal situation. Metropolitan Sawa believes that the provisions of the Act on the Relation of the State with the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church of 1991 violate the constitutional principle of equality of rights of Churches. This act introduces the only exception in confessional law from the “status quo” principle with regard to ownership (other Churches were granted ownership of utilized buildings). Members of the Orthodox Church question the constitutionality of the act’s article, which provides for regulating the issue of ownership of disputable sacral buildings within an indefinite time period, instead of – in accordance with the principle of acknowledging status quo – granting ownership to the Orthodox Church. Till this day a new act has not been prepared.             

Complaint to the ECHR
Already in 2003, the PAOC lodged a complaint to Strasburg in connection with the Constitutional Tribunal ruling on the constitutionality of the Act on the Relation of the State with the PAOC. In 2003, the CT ruled that it is in accordance with the Constitution. It decided that since the real estate under dispute was not in the Orthodox Church’s possession in the past, it cannot be stated that it was deprived of protection. In the CT’s opinion, proceedings concerning the granting of ownership differ with respect to the Orthodox Church and the Uniate Church, which is caused inter alia by their historical dissimilarity. During the hearing before the CT, representatives of the Parliament argued that such an entry was introduced because the Polish Sejm did not wish to harm any of the Churches by awarding property to another one, as it hoped that they would reach an agreement.

This however did not happen and currently it is necessary to wait for the ECHR’s decision.