The Violation of the Law and Religious Freedom in the Context of the Case of the Russian Church in Sofia—A Real Legal, Political and Canonical Issue

Abstract

For more than a century, in the center of Sofia, the capital of the Republic of Bulgaria, there is and functions the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, known as the Russian church. The church was built at the beginning of the 20th century with the idea of being part of the complex of the Russian imperial diplomatic body in Sofia and to serve the Russian diplomats, their families and the Orthodox Russian citizens living permanently or temporarily in the Bulgarian capital. However, after its consecration in 1914, disputes began, both regarding the ownership of the church building and the canonical jurisdiction of the church—of the Metropolitan of Sofia or the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow. This dispute culminated in September 2023, with the expulsion from Bulgaria of several Russian and Belarusian clergies serving in the Russian church on charges of espionage in favor of the Russian Federation. The subsequent closure of the church by the Russian ambassador Mitrofanova led to internal and external political tension and ecclesiological chaos in the country. The Russian side violated the Bulgarian Law on Religions, known as the Confessions Act 2002, and directly infringed the Statute of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. This article provides expert answers to the public law, property rights and canonical issues concerning the case of the Russian church in Sofia, based on the relevant sources of law (ecclesiastical and civil).

1. Introduction

Chronology of the events in the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia, Bulgaria, also known as the “Russian church”.

A large part of the immovable property of the Russian Federation in Bulgaria was acquired by occupation, forceful eviction or donation. This has been established, on the basis of facts, by a journalistic investigation of Radio Svobodna Evropa, the Bulgarian Service of RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty (RFE/RL) (Shikerova 2023). The Russian government owns dozens of decares of Bulgarian land and expensive real estates. These properties have diplomatic status or claim to have such. In practice, this means that they constitute territory of a foreign country that is inviolable. The Russian Federation owns more properties in Sofia than France, Germany, the USA and China put together; i.e., the Russian embassy is becoming the wealthiest embassy of all foreign diplomatic representations in the capital of the Republic of Bulgaria. The most favorable real estate schemes for Moscow took place during the communist regime, but not only then. In fact, the history of the Russian properties in Sofia and elsewhere on the territory of Bulgaria goes back more than a century (Shikerova 2023). What is new in this story is the unexpected “business interest” of the Russian state in the Bulgarian church property located in the center of Sofia, capital of Bulgaria, the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker (Bulgarian: цъpквa „Cв. Hикoлaй Mиpликийcки Чyдoтвopeц“, Romanized: tsarkva Sv. Nikolai Mirlikiyski Chudotvorets).

1.1. The Church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, the So-Called “Russian Church”, Located in the Centre of Sofia—History of the Church’s Ownership Problem, Espionage, and Legal Frauds

The property issue regarding the representation church (more properly called a podvorie) of the Moscow Patriarchate in Sofia—the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker (the so-called “Russian church”) came up on the agenda when the Bulgarian State Agency for National Security (DANS) expelled from the country as a Russian agent Archimandrite Vassian1—the head of the Russian church in Sofia and a Russian citizen. On Thursday, 21 September 2023, the Russian state-run news agency, abbreviated as TASS (TACC), showed some video footage from Sofia (Lenkin 2023b). At the beginning of it, a man in a cassock could be seen, accompanied by several others, entering the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker. In the next shot, the men come out carrying small bags. Archimandrite Vassian and Archipriest Yevgeny Pavelchuk (a Belarusian citizen)2 could be recognized in the video footage. The Agency said in a press release that the three clerics had worked to “purposefully influence the social and political processes in Bulgaria in favor of Russian geopolitical interests”; they were declared a threat to the national security and were expelled from Bulgaria3 (Lenkin 2023a; Klein 2023). A week before that (on 15 September 2023), the Republic of North Macedonia expelled three Russian diplomats from Skopje, as well as the aforementioned Archimandrite Vassian (Lefkov 2024). The reason, according to the Macedonian authorities, was that they were engaged in espionage. Vassian was appointed by the Russian Patriarch Kirill to act as the coordinator of the Russian church policy in the Balkans, with a special focus on Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Bulgarian media, citing multiple publications in North Macedonian media, have reported that his actions over the past year led “the relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the issue of granting the autocephaly to the Macedonian Orthodox Church-Archidiocese of Ochrid (MOC-OA) to a complete standstill” (Klein 2023). And this is not surprising considering the Russian policy and interests in relation to the Balkans, in particular to the political life in the Republic of North Macedonia.

Bulgaria, via Prime Minister Nikolay Denkov, also reacted to the expulsion of the three clerics from Russia and Belarus. “When someone commits wrongful actions which are in breach of the Bulgarian legislation, he should be penalised. In this case, we are talking about a penalty for violating the laws of Bulgaria”, the Prime Minister pointed out. “The measures were taken on the basis of a classified report. I only got familiar with it and I am not directly involved in making this decision. The decision is of the State Agency for National Security”, he added4.

On 21 September 2023, in a statement, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) expressed a strong protest against the expulsion of its representatives from Bulgaria (Moscow Patriarchate 2023c).

On 22 September 2023, the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker met the dawn locked. The closure was ordered by the Russian ambassador to Bulgaria, Eleonora Mitrofanova. The embassy of the Russian Federation announced its position on its Facebook page that the expulsion of the Russian priest and the two Belarusian clergymen from Bulgaria made it obvious that “the current leadership of Bulgaria has set itself the task of destroying not only the socio-political, cultural and humanitarian ties between our countries, but also to break the relations between the sister Russian and Bulgarian Orthodox churches and to embitter the Russian and Bulgarian nations against each other”. Speaking to journalists about the ownership of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, Ambassador Mitrofanova claimed that the church was the property of the Russian Embassy and that all legal documents were available5. However, the Russian ambassador contradicted herself by claiming that the Russian church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski in Sofia is owned by the Russian Embassy and at the same time announcing to journalists that “the Church is separated from the state”.

1.2. The Bulgarian Senior Clergy and the Russian Church Case

In the course of the heated debates in Bulgaria after the closure of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker by the Russian Embassy, on 23 September 2023, Naum, the Metropolitan of Ruse, who is also a member of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC), publicly disclosed his position that the Russian church was built with the Bulgarian Holy Synod’s blessing in 1914 as a legation church, situated in a common yard with the then-Russian Legation in the Bulgarian capital. Metropolitan Naum also presented a document according to which in 1936, at the insistence of the Soviet government, the church was taken from the Russian emigrants and handed over to the Bulgarian government, which in turn gave it to the BOC. The Metropolitan Naum of Ruse wrote, “In accordance with the decision of the Holy Synod of the ROC from 10 October 1952, all other Russian Orthodox parishes, monasteries and clergy situated in Bulgaria came under the jurisdiction and the possession of the BOC”. He further reminded the audience that as a result of the bombing of Sofia in 1944, the church was heavily damaged, and in 1945–46 it was restored solely by the Holy Metropolis of Sofia. In the following years, the church was served by Bulgarian clergy and with them there were Russian clerics who were permanently residing in Bulgaria after the October Revolution. Again, following a decision of the ROC from November 1953, a podvorie6 (a representation church) was founded in the former legation church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski. The Bulgarian priests in the church continued to be appointed by the Holy Mitropolis of Sofia, and the ROC began to send periodically its official representative7.

However, the voice of Metropolitan Naum of Ruse remained a “voice in the desert” among the Bulgarian senior clergy. Some of his fellow brothers, Metropolitans and members of the Holy Synod openly took a pro-Russian position. So, for example, Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin, expressed regret on social networks about the expulsion of the Russian church clerics8, (Moscow Patriarchate 2023b). On 3 November 2022, a letter from Daniil to the priests and clerics in Vidin Diocese was published on the official Facebook profile of the Metropolis, in which he condemns the perpetrators of the 2014 coup and the participants at Kyiv’s Maidan in Ukraine (Ivanov 2022) and thereby openly defends the Russian political interests. In his typical style, with frankly pro-Russian positions, Metropolitan Gavriil of Lovech also comes out, stating that the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker has always belonged to Russia. His position comes as no surprise to anyone. Gavriil headed the podvorie of the BOC in Moscow from 1986 to 19919 and regardless of his short stay there, after his return to Bulgaria, until today, when he speaks in Bulgarian, his Russian accent attracts attention. In 2014, in an interview to a Russian media (Tutina 2014), he stated that the Russian Federation “is becoming an increasingly stronger and more powerful Orthodox state, a state with an Orthodox presence in life and in spirit”.

On 25 September 2023, His Holiness Neophyte, Patriarch of Bulgaria and Metropolitan of Sofia10, appointed five Bulgarian priests11 to serve in the church, but access to the building must be granted by the Russian Embassy in Sofia, and the church remained locked (it is important to emphasize this fact in light of the canonical aspect of the dispute about the Russian church, which is commented on below). The decision of the Bulgarian Patriarch was reported in a press release issued by the Sofia Metropolia12 where it is said: “With his order dated today, 25/09/2023, His Holiness Bulgarian Patriarch Neophyte, in the exercise of his powers as Metropolitan of Sofia, in whose diocese is located the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski, personally appointed priests from Sofia who will take care of the church, performing the usual services. The Holy Metropolis of Sofia guarantees that no part of the property of the church will be lost or damaged. The action of His Holiness is dictated by care for the faithful, preservation of good order in the church and should be understood only in its spiritual aspect. It does not affect the property or other rights of anyone as guaranteed to them by secular laws. His Holiness Bulgarian Patriarch Neofit has informed the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Kirill about the actions taken in a special letter. His Holiness expects assistance from the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Sofia for the opening of the temple and the continuation of its blessed life, which plays an important role in the spiritual upliftment of Orthodox Christians”. In his letter to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Kirill, the Bulgarian Patriarch Neophyte demanded that the church be unlocked. The specific content of the Bulgarian Patriarch’s letter to his Russian counterpart is not known. Bulgarian clerics were sent to Ambassador Mitrofanova with a mission to make an earnest request for the opening of the church. However, the Russian diplomat refused, announcing that the embassy will take action in coordination with the ROC13.

In this tense atmosphere, aggravated by the strong Russian influence at senior level within the Bulgarian church administration, on 3 October 2023, the Holy Synod of the BOC took a decision related to the Russian church matter14. The Holy Synod gave its unqualified support (metropolitan Daniil of Vidin dissented with respect to the Bulgarian Patriarchate’s jurisdiction over the Russian church) to the actions taken by Patriarch Neophyte in his capacity as Metropolitan of Sofia with regard to the podvorie of ROC in Sofia. However, the decision was palliative and conciliatory—it expressed the “hope that the church will be opened as soon as possible, but this is not within the competences and powers of the BOC-BP”. The decision did not contain any canonical defense of the church principles and rules, and of the autocephalous rights, which the BOC possesses by right. As alluded to in the text, the position of the Holy Synod of the BOC on the case of the Russian church in Sofia was not accidental.

On 10 November 2023, more than a month after its closure, the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker was reopened to worshippers. A divine service was celebrated, which was attended by the Russian ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova and by Bulgarian politicians and public figures outspoken in their pro-Russian positions. Archpriest Vladimir Tyschuk was appointed as the new representative of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Kirill in the representation church (podvorie) of the ROC in Sofia, having until then been a cleric of the Russian diocese of Vienna and Austria (Moscow Patriarchate 2023a). A curious detail is that Vladimir Tyschuk’s father—archpriest Arkady Tyschuk—was the dean of the Russian church in Sofia from 1973 to 1975, after which he was sent to New York.

Meanwhile, in connection with the unwarranted closure of the church by the Russian embassy, the Supreme Administrative Prosecutor’s Office and the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation to establish the ownership of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker. Based on the investigation carried out, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bulgaria found legal inconsistencies with the allegations made by the Russian embassy in Sofia that the Russian church is a property of the embassy and announced that that these facts can be used to refute the ownership of the church15. Bulgarian acting Prosecutor General Borislav Sarafov referred the matter to the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works, Andrey Tsekov, with a proposal for bringing actions for the recognition of the right to property to the Bulgarian state and for the cancellation of the issued notarial deed concerning the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia.16 Bulgarian Justice Minister Atanas Slavov also took a position on the case of the Russian church in Sofia through a comment in his official Facebook profile: “It is inadmissible that the Russian state in the person of Ambassador [Eleonora] Mitrofanova should lock down a church which is moreover under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Patriarch and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and should thus prevent us all from offering our prayers and should prevent us from venerating the relics of St. Seraphim of Sofia, the Wonderworker. This is canonical arrogation. And state measures should probably be taken” (Gigov 2023).

Yet the legal, political and canon law problems with the Russian church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia remain. As a result, these problems are generating social and political tension, and an ecclesiological chaos in the canonical territory of the autocephalous BOC. The Russian side is not complying with the provisions of the national legislation in force and of the canon law resulting in an infringement of the religious rights of the Orthodox believers in Bulgaria. The obstacles impeding progress towards the resolution of these intense conflicts regarding the case of the Russian church in Sofia can be divided into three main groups: public law and property law issues, political issues, and canonical issues. Their interpretation follows below.

2. Legal and Canonical Expertise of the Case of the Russian Church in Sofia

2.1. Public Law and Ownership Law Issues with the Russian Church Case

Apparently, the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia is a complicated one as the state and church institutions, and the public are provided with different documents through which ownership is claimed by the Russian and Bulgarian sides.

The Russian Embassy in Sofia defends its claims and allegations that the Russian Federation is the owner of the Russian church in Sofia with the following facts and circumstances.

2.1.1. The Title Deed No. 11 of 7 November 1898

The title deed played the role of a notarial deed during the period from 1887 to 1910 when they were issued in Bulgaria. Twenty years after the Liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman dominion (1878), on 7 November 1898, the Sofia Municipality Council of the then Principality of Bulgaria provided through a title deed “one empty urban place in the city of Sofia” to the Russian Imperial Diplomatic Agency, in recognition and appreciation of the role of the Russian Empire in the Liberation of Bulgaria17. In this sense, the title deed is accepted as a historical legal fact concerning the case of the Russian church in Sofia. However, this document does not explain the very circumstances under which this decision was made18. Thus, the following must be said.

Regardless of the fact that at the end of the 19th century the Bulgarian society was divided into russophobes and russophiles, in general the Bulgarian statehood at that time was politically under the overall influence of the Russian state. In this situation, a property was donated for the construction of a church to serve Russian diplomats and their families residing in Bulgaria. At first sight, the “title deed” document has all the legal attributes to be regarded as unobjectionable. However, it turns out that when this decision was made by the Sofia Municipal Council and when the document for the ownership of the land was issued to the Russian diplomatic mission, the plot of land granted had an owner. In fact, the Sofia municipality donated a property owned by a particular, living person. The landowners were obviously not happy with this act. This is evidenced by a document from 1926, which showed that the heirs of the property had held a lawsuit for it and the court ruled in their favor. More than 40 years after the decision on expropriation and donation, the Sofia Municipal Council decided to compensate the heirs (Shikerova 2023). Proceedings were brought before the court which continued even after the death of the real owner of the land donated to the Russian diplomatic mission, and finally these legal proceedings were resolved by a settlement in court and compensation to the heirs of the owner (Metodiev 2023).

2.1.2. The Ascertainment Notarial Deed of 23 July 1997

An interesting and suspicious circumstance regarding the case of the Russian church in Sofia is that “quite unexpectedly”, at the end of September 2023, all Bulgaria, including the government authorities and the leadership of the BOC, in the person of the Holy Synod, learnt that by an ascertainment notarial deed of 23 July 1997 the Embassy of the Russian Federation is recognized as the owner of the Orthodox church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker and of the land on which it is built. The ascertainment notarial act was issued by notary Ivan Dahterov, then a young notary in the civil service with only three years of experience. The ascertainment notarial deed was drawn up at the request of the then-Russian ambassador in Sofia, Leonid Vladimirovich Kerestedjiants. When asked by the Bulgarian National Television about what notary Dahterov did remember about signing the deed of 1997 through which the property rights over the Russian church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker were established, Dahterov replied that “Many years have passed. My memory is very vague”, however, explaining that “For me, there is no doubt that there is legal succession between states. In my opinion, this cannot be a legal problem either, because it is clear that a country has full legal succession regardless of the political system in it—whether it is the USSR or Russia”19. In his statements to the Bulgarian mass media, notary Dahterov did not comment on why he failed to take into account the canonical and statutory provisions governing the BOC (since the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker is not just an immovable property, but also a church situated in the canonical diocese of the BOC) and the Bulgarian legislation in force in the field of religion and, last but not least—why he did not notify the BOC about the legal actions taken by him. With regard to the ascertainment notarial deed issued in 1997 by notary Dahterov, I would add the following.

Based on the review of the Bulgarian legislation in the field of ownership law, I conclude that neither the Kingdom of Bulgaria, nor the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, nor the Republic of Bulgaria allow foreigners and foreign legal entities to acquire ownership over land in Bulgaria because this would contradict the principle of state sovereignty. The exception to this rule are citizens and legal persons of EU Member States or of Member States under the Agreement on the European Economic Area who may acquire ownership of a land meeting the legal requirements, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union (Treaty of Accession 2005). The Bulgarian Ownership Act20 lays down these restrictions in Article 2921. The principle that “what is not expressly forbidden is permitted” does not apply here. Since 1904, the Property, Ownership and Servitus Act established that the properties of secular and church institutions and of other legal entities belong to these institutions and persons only provided the legislation in the Kingdom of Bulgaria recognized their right to acquire and own properties (Article 27). The properties of the diplomatic missions are regulated by bilateral agreements under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations22. In other words, the issue of the ownership of the parcel of land, donated by the Sofia Municipality in 1898 to the Embassy of the Russian Empire, is a contentious one and the donation is questionable23 (Yochev n.d.).

2.2. The Position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Case of the Russian Church in Sofia

Not surprisingly, in view of the examples from the last few years of the ROC’s aggressive expansion into Africa, of the ROC’s actions against the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Orthodox people, of the undermining by the Russian side of the monastic discipline on the Holy Mount of Athos and of similar acts elsewhere, the ROC defends its position regarding the case of the Russian church in Sofia, insisting that the church is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church—Moscow Patriarchate (ROC-MP). In this regard, it is clear, even to the naked eye, that the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and the Moscow Patriarch Kirill consistently appeal to the ideology of the “Russian world” (Russkiy Mir) and stress the existence of some “broad/transnational Russian culture or civilization”, called Holy Rus’ (Svyatáya Rus’), which includes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and sometimes Moldova, as well as ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people around the world. Here it is useful to recall how the diocese of the ROC is defined in its Statute, a matter on which the Metropolitan of Peristeri in Greece, Prof. Hdr. Archim. Grigorios D. Papathomas, wrote an extensive text24. The main postulate of the “Russian world” is that there is a common political center in Moscow, a common spiritual center in Kyiv as the “mother of Russian cities”, a common Russian language, a common church—the ROC-MP—and a common patriarch who works “in synchronization” with the common president/national leader (Putin) in order to run this “Russian world”, while at the same time advocating the idea of a unique shared spirituality, morality and culture which are threatened by the “Rotting West”25 (Archim. Bartholomew (Gazetas) 2022). In the present case, it is interesting to note that following the dynamics of events, the ROC-MP does not state its own position—that of the Russian Holy Synod—on the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia, but rather waits for the Kremlin official spokespeople to express their views and then repeats the official Russian political position.

It should also be explicitly emphasized that in the case of the Russian church in Sofia, the issue is about the canonical territory (diocese) of the BOC-BP, and not about an Orthodox diaspora26 (Greek: διασπορά—scattering). A diaspora is an Orthodox minority that is scattered across regions which are outside their national canonical territory and outside the canonical territory of other local Orthodox Church, and as a rule is situated in territory (country) in which the Orthodox faith is not dominant and there is not a historically established Orthodox tradition.

2.3. The Bulgarian Religions Act and the Statute of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (the Statute of the BOC) in the Case of the Russian Church in Sofia

The Bulgarian Religions Act27 explicitly recognizes under Article 10, para 1 that “the Eastern Orthodox is the traditional confession in the Republic of Bulgaria”. This paragraph also stipulates that “its spokesperson and representative is the autocephalous Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which, under the name Patriarchy, is the successor of Bulgaria’s Exarchate and is a member of the United, Holy, Conciliar, and Apostolic Church. It is governed by the Holy Synod and is represented by the Bulgarian Patriarch who is also a Metropolitan of Sofia”. Article 10, para 2 states that the BOC-BP is “a legal entity” and that “its organization and management are defined in its Statute”. Paragraph 3 of the same article states that “paragraphs 1 and 2 cannot be a basis for granting privileges or any advantages by law”.

In relation to the case of the Russian church in Sofia, the key text of the Religions Act is that of Article 14: “Religious communities may acquire the status of a legal entity under the conditions and according to the procedure of this Act”. This means that any claims by the Russian side—the embassy in Sofia and the central leadership of the ROC—that they have the status of a legal entity of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, are irrelevant with respect to the specific Bulgarian legislation in the area of religions. In other words, even assuming that the Russian embassy is the owner of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, the absence of a legal entity, established according to the requirements of the Bulgarian Religions Act, automatically leads to the conclusion that there is a direct infringement of the Religions Act. In the case under consideration, an attempt is made by the Russian state (the Russian embassy) to circumvent the law with the argument that the acquisition of the ascertainment notarial act in 1997 was based on the legally relevant presence of a legal entity—the Russian embassy, which, however, is a legal entity that acquired this capacity according to the requirements of a foreign legislation.

In the context of the Religions Act, it is striking that the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker is not listed in the state, judicial and municipal Bulgarian registers. In this instance, the church is not included in the list of “prayer houses, churches and monasteries intended for public religious rites”, which is submitted by the religious religions “annually by the end of February to the Directorate of Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria” (Article 12, para 2 of the Religions Act), neither is it listed in the public register of the Directorate of Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers (Article 12, para 3 of the Religions Act), in the Sofia City Court’s public register of religions with the status of legal entities (Article 18 of the Religions Act), or in the public register of the local branches of religions kept by the municipal administration of the town of Sofia (Article 19 of the Religions Act).

Essentially and in a broad sense, the question of the ownership of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker is about whether the BOC-BP as a legal entity in accordance with the provisions of the Religions Act and as a legal subject of both to civil law and canon law could have legal and ecclesiastical claims on the very ownership of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia and on its property.

The canonical understanding of church property as belonging to God has determined that property to be regarded as inviolable and, more importantly—inalienable. Taking into account this specificity of Canon Law, the Statute of the BOC has withdrawn the church immovable property from the civil turnover and has deprived the management bodies of the legal entities who own the property of the power of “disposition” (disposal of the property). Such a prohibition on disposal transactions is found neither in the Statute of the Bulgarian Exarchate (1872–1950), nor in the Statute of the BOC (1950–1953)28, which relates to the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker. This illustrates how at a moment in history fundamental legal or regulatory provisions did not prohibit, and at other times, there was a prohibition on disposition transactions of church property.

The provisions of Article 22, para 1 of the Religions Act further stipulate that the disposal of the property of the religions will be governed by their statutes. The statute of the BOC is, therefore, an internal regulation of a corporate association and, although it is subsidiary in nature, taking into account the provisions of Article 10, para 2, second sentence and of Article 22 of the Religions Act, it can be assumed that the Statute of the BOC is an immediate source of law not only for the members of the BOC but also for all legal entities involved in the legal relationships regulated by the Statute of the BOC. In other words, it must be concluded that all persons subject to legislative action, as well as the judicial bodies/authorities—the courts or the qualified notaries, must take into account the provisions of the Statute of the BOC when participating in legal relationships or coming up with rulings regarding real estate transactions with property owned by the BOC and its divisions, or by divisions that are under its spiritual canonical authority (Michaylov 2021).

Another question regarding the property of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, which needs to be clarified, is whether there is a Board of Trustees29 of this church. The Board of Trustees is actually the governing body of the church and its chairman—the parish pries—represent the church as a legal entity registered under the Religions Act. The Statute of the BOC establishes the rights and obligations of the Board of Trustees acquiring, exercising and disposing right of ownership over immovable property, as well as bringing actions for protection of property rights30. Giving details of this issue is important for the clarification of the case of the Russian church in Sofia, both from canonical perspective and in terms of the regulatory requirements of the Religions Act31.

According to the provisions of the Statute of the BOC, the local divisions of the BOC, being legal entities under the Religions Act, have the recognized right of ownership over their property, although they cannot carry out dispositional transactions with it. In an Ordinance, adopted by the Holy Synod at its meeting on 19 June 2018, protocol No. 13, Full Board, it is stipulated that “the establishment of rights in rem over the use and construction of property and the transfer of a right of ownership of immovable property, between legal entities, which are divisions of the BOC-BP, can be done with the approval of the Holy Synod in its Full Board, issued as a protocol decision”32.

2.4. Right to Exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the Church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia—Canonical Interpretation

From a canonical point of view, the dispute that arose over the issue of the canonical jurisdiction of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia must be assessed and resolved through the prism of two fundamental canonical aspects: (a) the problem of co-territoriality in the Orthodox Church and the resulting legal effects; and (b) church formations with identical names in a given canonical territory and the resulting canonical effects. These two canonical aspects of the problem with the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia are related to the canonical problem of the metropolitan multiple authority (two or more metropolitans within the same canonical territory, i.e., overlapping jurisdiction) and ecclesiastical multiple authority (two or more local churches at the same place) (cf. Papathomas 2019).

Through the church rules (canons), established as generally binding for all local Churches and Orthodox Christians, the canonical territory of each local autocephalous Orthodox Church is inviolable and absolute as regards the governing power. In ancient times, when local Churches did not yet exist in the way we perceive them today, the prototype of today’s diocese was the paroikia (Lat. porœcia, parochia). The church rules, promulgated in the life, organization and governance of the Church through the canons adopted by the Ecumenical and Local Councils, read: “The diocesan bishops should not exercise their powers to churches lying outside of their bounds”; “the Churches should not be mixed”; “Clergy who serve in godly places will be under the control of the diocesan bishop”. In the context of the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, the listed church canons have a firm “force of law” canonical character, which state: “No bishop should dare to pass from one diocese to another, nor to ordain in its church … or to bring others with him, unless he goes upon written invitations of the metropolitan and of the bishops to him, in whose area he comes. And if, in spite of the order, without being called by anyone, he goes to ordain some and organizes ecclesiastical affairs that do not belong to him, let what he has done be null and void, and for his disorderly act and for his arbitrariness he will suffer an appropriate punishment, namely, immediate demotion from rank by Holy Council”; “there should not be two bishops in one city”; “It has come to our knowledge that some, despite the ecclesiastical decrees, resorting to power, by royal decrees, had divided one area into two, so that there would be two metropolitans in one diocese. Therefore the Holy Council decreed that no bishop in future should dare to do anything like this”; etc.33 The quoted church canons are generally binding for the Orthodox Church—for all independent autocephalous Churches—in its unity and conciliarity, for all its members. The church canons insist that in one and the same local canonical territory a metropolitan multiple authority and an ecclesiastical multiple power are inadmissible—this is strictly banned, i.e., the canons of the Orthodox Church preclude the Head of the Russian Church (Patriarch) to have jurisdiction power either over the diocese of the BOC-BP as a whole, or over the diocese of the Sofia Diocese, in whose territory the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker is situated.

The problem of the co-territoriality (more than one local churches in the same territory) and of the multi-jurisdiction (more than one metropolitan in the same territory) concerns the issue of the right of canonical authority over the canonical territory of one autocephalous church (cf. Papathomas 2019). To be clear, I provide the following hypothetical case.

There are a total of 13 dioceses functioning on the canonical territory of the BOC-BP within the borders of the Republic of Bulgaria, which by virtue of Article 3, para. 1 of the Statute of the BOC are legal entities. Let us imagine that a legally recognized legal entity or a natural person purchases an immovable property—land which has not been built on—and donates it to the Plovdiv Metropolis (resp. Diocese). However, the property is situated in the canonical diocese of the Sofia Diocese. The Plovdiv Metropolis accepts the donation, builds a church and it is duly entered in the relevant property register as the owner of the church. According to the church rules, as the built church is located in the canonical diocese of the Sofia Metropolis, it passes under the canonical jurisdiction of its primate—the Metropolitan of Sofia—even if the owner of the church is the Plovdiv Metropolis. It is for the Metropolitan of Sofia to consecrate the church, to appoint priests to serve in it, to ensure the correct, uniform and regular performance of the Divine Services and the maintenance of the church, to tonsure readers and singers, to ordain ‘worthy men’ to the Holy Priesthood to minister to the parish, and to issue orders for their appointment and dismissal (Art. 95 of the Statute of the BOC).

The example given refers to the canonical administration of a canonical territory in an autocephalous church. Furthermore, this example refers to the power of jurisdiction of a local autocephalous church over its canonical territory: power of jurisdiction that protects its canonical territory from intentional or unintentional interference in its governance by other local Orthodox church/churches. It clearly demonstrates that in one diocese the existence of co-territoriality and episcopal co-jurisdiction (double jurisdiction) is impossible, since they are prohibited by the church rules and are inadmissible in the canonical administrative practice of the Orthodox Church, of each local autocephalous Orthodox Church.

To these canonical requirements and established canonical practice has to be added another problem that has arisen from the case of the Russian church of St. Nicholas Mirlikiskii the Wonderworker in Sofia, which is a legal issue concerning the same name of the local churches (BOC and ROC) claiming jurisdiction over this church. Obviously, according to both the Religions Act and to the church rules and the Statute of the BOC, there cannot be two ecclesial jurisdictions with the same designation—Orthodox churches (BOC and ROC) over one entity subject of law (the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia), i.e., the existence of two ecclesial structures with the same name for one and the same Eucharistic community.

3. Conclusions

A fortiori, in conclusion, I believe that in the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia, the questions concerning (a) the clarification of the ownership of the church, (b) the right to exercise canonical jurisdiction over that church, and (c) the breach of fundamental legal and canonical principles and legislative requirements relating to the exercise of the freedom of religion in the context of the events regarding the case in question, should be decided on the basis of the sources of law (ecclesiastical and civil) relevant to the presented case: first, the current Bulgarian legislation specialized in the area of religion (the Religions Act), and second, the established canonical requirements for resolving such cases (church rules/canons, canonical provisions of the Statute of the BOC, decisions of the Ecumenical councils, decisions of the Holy Synod etc). Such sources of law are cited and commented on in this study. The main conclusion regarding the case of the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia is that, regardless of whose property this church is, it falls under the canonical jurisdiction of the BOC-BP, and according to the Bulgarian civil law, the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker in Sofia is subject to the legal framework governing the right to freedom of religion and the exercise of this right (the Religions Act).