A damaging schism in Bulgaria’s Orthodox Church has now entered a new stage of arbitration in the European Court. Meanwhile, the state could be ruing its decision not to allow the courts to resolve a longstanding disagreement between the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC) and a group of priests who claim that the current Patriarch Maxim’s election contravened the BOC’s rules in 1971.

Ever since 2003 the state has been trying to control the fallout from its intrusion into the BOC’s affairs. In the latest development the state decided to appeal against a  ruling by the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) from January 22 2009 that Bulgarian authorities had violated the right to religious freedom in Bulgaria and that the Government had intervened illegally by accepting Maxim as the patriarch of the BOC without a court registration.

The case
Maxim (95) was elected as head of the BOC in 1971, backed by the ruling Bulgarian Communist Party of the time. His election, however, did not correspond to the BOC’s technical rules. When democracy was established in 1989, a group of priests questioned the legitimacy of Maxim’s rule and demanded new elections. The Holy Synod refused to hold them. In 1992, however, the rebellious priests won a powerful ally when Bulgaria’s first right-wing government sided with the priests against Maxim, who was seen as a communist stooge by his opponents.

On May 25 1992, the Government (which registers all religious authorities after a court sanction) declared the Holy Synod of BOC illegal and called for new elections. These were won by Pimen, leader of the rebellious priests. The media started referring to him as "the alternative synod", since Maxim’s synod continued to exist. The split became even more entrenched.

In 1996 newly-elected right-wing president Petar Stoyanov showed his support for Pimen by choosing him on his inauguration day, not Maxim. In 1998, however, Maxim won the support of all Christian Orthodox Churches who called upon Pimen and his followers to withdraw their opposition. The move was scarcely surprising because Pimen’s actions, supported by the state at the time, could have served as a pretext for anyone to question the legitimacy of the church’s leadership in all Christian Orthodox countries.

This standoff continued until 2004 when the situation turned violent. In 2002 the government of Bulgaria’s former monarch Simeon Saxe-Coburg adopted an amendment to the Law on Religious Denominations  which recognised Maxim as the sole and only leader of the BOC. All other religious authorities had to register before the court. What ensued was one of the ugliest scenes in Bulgaria’s contemporary history.

Several hundred followers of Pimen, who after his death in 1999 was succeeded by Inokentii, had a number of churches and other religious buildings under their control. In 2004, based on the amendment, the government refused to register Inokentii’s synod and police began expelling his followers from churches.

Extraordinary images of priests being evicted by police were beamed worldwide. Since then the "alternative synod" has been holding services under a tent right across from the National Art Gallery.

Religious rights  
Inokentii, however, refused to surrender and filed a claim before the ECHR, supported by 800 Bulgarians, against the Bulgarian state, claiming 700 million euro in damages. The result was the ECHR January 22 2009 ruling that Bulgaria had violated the religious rights of Inokentii and his followers.

On March 12 2009, Maxim received the support of 12 Christian Orthodox Churches who urged the state to appeal against the ruling before the ECHR’s Grand Chamber, which the Government did in April. But Bulgaria’s record of appealing against rulings before the Grand Chamber is poor. All four of its appeals on various cases have been rejected to date.

Serious implications?
President Georgi Purvanov described the ECHR’s January 22 ruling as an act that "could have serious implications not only for Bulgaria but the entire region". Consequently, in light of the Strasbourg court ruling, Purvanov and the Russian Patriarch pledged their full support for the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to prevent a potential rift.

Human rights lawyer Yonko Grozev told Bulgarian-language Dnevnik daily that Purvanov’s request for intervention from the Russian Patriarch was a very alarming development. "This completely contravenes  the principle of right of worship and the freedom of individual rights," he said. "In fact, the decision by Strasbourg has put the Bulgarian Government in a good position: it can either decide to assist the two synods to reach consensus or it may register them as separate orthodox denominations which are free to preach their own form of Orthodox Christianity."

Human rights lawyer Mihail Ekimdjiev told Dnevnik that the Government’s decision to appeal against the Strasbourg ruling was absurd. "The Grand Chamber of 17 magistrates only looks into cases of extreme importance," he said, stressing that the only point of this decision is to win time ahead of the elections for Bulgarian Parliament scheduled for the end of June or the beginning of July.