SCHILDER v. THE NETHERLANDS

În conformitate cu art. 6 § 1 din Constituție, fiecare are dreptul de a manifesta liberă religie sau credință, fie individual, fie în comunitate cu alții, fără a aduce atingere responsabilității sale în temeiul legii. În temeiul celui de-al doilea paragraf al prezentei dispoziții, normele privind exercitarea acestui drept în afara clădirilor și locurilor închise pot fi stabilite prin lege pentru protecția sănătății, în interesul traficului și pentru combaterea sau prevenirea tulburărilor. În secțiunea 10 din MOM, sună clopotele bisericii în contextul ceremonielor ... religioase, precum și pentru apelurile la închinare ... sunt permise. În această privință, consiliul municipal este competent să stabilească norme în ceea ce privește durata și volumul. În conformitate cu art. 109a din APV, este interzisă între orele 11:00 și 19:30. să elibereze apeluri de închinare în sensul articolului 10 din Actul privind manifestațiile publice prin intermediul (a) clopotelor bisericii sau prin alte mijloace dacă volumul depășește standardele stabilite în decretul de gestionare a mediului cu mai mult de 10 dB(A) și depășește volumul de referință al mediului cu mai mult de 10 dB(A). În conformitate cu secțiunea 2.18 § 1 litera (c) din Decretul privind managementul mediului, sunetul pentru apelurile de închinare ... nu este luat în considerare în determinarea nivelurilor sonore, menționate la secțiunile 2.17, 2.19 și 2.20… 2.3 Preotul parohial susține că Curtea Regională a constatat în mod incorect că art. 109a din APV este obligatoriu. Potrivit preotului, Curtea nu a apreciat faptul că consiliul municipal de la Tilburg, în încălcarea secțiunii 10 a OMM-ului, nu a dat motive pentru necesitatea de a determina o restricție de volum pentru perioada care durează de la ora 11 până la ora 7.30. Acest lucru este chiar mai cogent din moment ce durata acestei perioade face apelul pentru a venera iluzoria sau cel puțin restricționează acest lucru inutil în timp ce serviciul de dimineață începe la 7.30 a.m. și numai 25% dintre parohianți pot fi atinși dacă sunetul clopotului bisericii este moffled. În această privință, preotul susține, în continuare, că în practică, încearcă un efort disproporționat. Preotul parohial susține în continuare că perioada stabilită este contrară de decretul de gestionare a mediului, secțiunea 2.17, deoarece se prevede în aceasta că perioada nopții durează de la ora 11.00 până la ora 7.00. În opinia sa, modul în care secțiunea 109a din APV a fost redactată duce, în plus, la incertitudinea juridică, deoarece nu se poate deduce de la aceasta la standardul concret al volumului sonor al decretului de gestionare a mediului, sunarea (a) a clopoturilor bisericii este legată. Preotul parohiei susține că singurul motiv pentru care consiliul municipal a ales să aibă perioada supusă restricției durată până la 7.30 a.m. este să se opună clopotului bisericii sune în acest caz concret. Prin urmare, el susține că art. 109a din APV nu servește interesul municipal, ci numai interesele speciale de a se plânge de rezidenți vecini, respingând astfel dispoziția, de asemenea, din acest motiv neobligatoriu. 2.3.1. A doua teză din secțiunea 10 a OMM-ului confirmă că ... Consiliul municipal poate determina reguli pentru durata și volumul clopotelor bisericii în scopul emiterii de apeluri de închinare. După cum apare din istoria de redactare a acestei dispoziții, această formă de sunet clopot bisericii face parte din liturgia și poate fi considerată o manifestare a convingerilor religioase care este protejată de art. 6 din Constituție… O interpretare rezonabilă a [aceasta dispoziție] presupune că acest drept nu implică libertatea de a suna clopotele bisericii fără limite în ceea ce privește durata și volumul. Puterea descrisă în a doua teză a secțiunii 10 din MOM este destinată prevenirii exceselor în cazul în care se referă la durata și volumul. Regulile juridice stabilite în acest scop la nivel municipal pot fi ajustate, în funcție de circumstanțele și nevoile locale, la ocaziile și momentele în care clopotele trebuie sunate. Acest tip de reglementare a duratei și a volumului în limite rezonabile, fără a duce la o situație în care nu mai rămâne o utilizare semnificativă a sunetului sau clopotelor, trebuie considerat că nu restricționează libertatea religiei… ” 2.3.

Curtea regională are ... Consiliul municipal nu a acționat contrar secțiunii 10, a doua propoziție a OMM prin limitarea volumului clopotului bisericii pentru o parte a perioadei zilnice de douăzeci și patru de ore. Acesta rezultă din anunțul explicativ de la secțiunile 109a din APV că consiliul municipal a ales să aplice interdicția prevăzută în această dispoziție între ora 11. și 7.30 a.m., pentru că acesta este momentul în care majoritatea oamenilor se bucură de odihnă de noapte. Odihna de această noapte poate fi deranjată atunci când apelurile de închinare sunt făcute într-o manieră tare. Deoarece un apel la închinare este o manifestare a dreptului tuturor de a practica în mod liber religia sa, unele nuințe de zgomot trebuie, conform consiliului municipal, să fie tolerate și interzicerea se aplică numai formelor excesive de nuință de zgomot cu un nivel sonor care depășește cu mai mult de 10 dB(A) standardul stabilit în decretul de gestionare a mediului și cu mai mult de 10 dB(A) nivelul sonor al împrejurărilor. Divizia de Jurisdicție Administrativă constată că, astfel, consiliul municipal a fost suficient de motivat de ce au fost alese orele în cauză și, după ce a cântărit interesele implicate, poate fi considerat că au fost decise în mod rezonabil în acest interval de timp. Faptul că clopotul bisericii sună la un volum mai mic poate ajunge la un număr mai mic de parohianți pentru a-i chema pentru a participa la ora 7.30. masa de dimineață decât fără o astfel de restricție și faptul că îmbogățirea clopotelor bisericii se întâlnește cu obiecții practice nu poate duce la o constatare că nu se poate folosi nici o semnificație a clopotelor. În acest sens, Curtea Regională a considerat în mod corect că secțiunea 109a din APV nu oferă iluzorie posibilitatea de a practica religia, deoarece această dispoziție nu face imposibilă sunarea clopotelor înainte de orele 7.30 și nu se aplică restricții pentru nivelul sonor al clopotului bisericii care sună între orele 7.30 și orele 11.00. 2.3.

Având în vedere cele de mai sus, Divizia de Jurisdicție Administrativă susține concluzia Curții regionale că art. 109a din APV nu depășește competența prevăzută la punctul 10 § 2 din OMM. 2.3.

De asemenea, nu există motive pentru a considera că alegerea perioadei în cauză încălcă decretul de gestionare a mediului. Curtea regională a considerat în mod corect că nu este necesar să se examineze compatibilitatea articolului 109a din APV cu decretul de gestionare a mediului, deoarece această dispoziție își găsește bazele în OMM și în secțiunile 2.18 § 1 (c) din decretul de gestionare a mediului prevede că nu se ia în considerare un sunet în scopul emiterii de apeluri de închinare în vederea determinarea nivelurilor solide în sensul acestui decret. De la un memorandum explicativ la această dispoziție se prevede că această alegere a fost făcută, deoarece sistemul Constituțional coroborat cu OMM-ul a fost considerat ca un cadru adecvat pentru reglementarea sunetului clopotelor bisericii, mai degrabă decât o reglementare în decretul de gestionare a mediului. 2.3.

Deși decretul de gestionare a mediului nu este direct aplicabil în ceea ce privește nivelurile de zgomot admisibile, Divizia Jurisdicției Administrative constată că consiliul municipal a avut dreptul să-l conecteze la standardele de zgomot prevăzute în decretul de gestionare a mediului, astfel cum se indică în sens obiectiv atunci când se poate vorbi despre zgomot. Spre deosebire de ceea ce a fost argumentat de preotul parohial, apare suficient de clar din textul articolului 109a din APV, în care se face trimitere explicită la normele prevăzute în Decretul de management al mediului, ce volum de sunet al clopotului bisericii este permis în acea parte a zilei… 2.3.

De asemenea, Divizia de Jurisdicție Administrativă nu împărtășește opinia preotului parohiei că art. 109a din APV nu servește interesul municipal. Că reglementarea duratei și volumului clopotelor bisericii poate fi considerată ca [producerea] un interes municipal rezultă deja din cea de-a doua teză a articolului 10 din OMM în care se confirmă competența consiliului municipal la acest punct. În acest caz, interesul municipal se află în mod concret în protecția locuitorilor municipiului împotriva tulburărilor de odihnă a nopții lor. Dispoziția APV în cauză se aplică tuturor organismelor religioase și celelalte care emit apeluri – prin sunetul clopotelor – pentru a manifesta o religie sau convingeri. Deși, așa cum a subliniat corect de el, clopotul bisericii sună de preot parohial care a condus la introducerea în APV-ul dispozițiilor în cauză, acest lucru nu implică faptul că niciun interes municipal nu a fost în joc. 2.3.

Având în vedere considerațiile de mai sus, Curtea Regională a constatat corect că art. 109a din APV nu este obligatoriu. Curtea Regională a susținut, de asemenea, în mod corect că consiliul municipal – având în vedere măsurarea zgomotului făcut – a fost corect în concluzia că preotul parohial a încălcat această dispoziție, astfel încât consiliul municipal să fie competent să acționeze într-un mod care vizează asigurarea respectării normelor.” Nu se impune niciun apel suplimentar împotriva acestei hotărâri.

The applicant is the parish priest and chairman of the board of the catholic Heilige Margarita Maria Alacoque parish (“the parish”) in Tilburg. The parish has one church, with one church bell. Since 1924 the church bell has been used in order to call parishioners to the services of worship.

In order to call the parishioners to attend the 7.30 a.m. service, the applicant used to ring the church bell at 7.15 a.m. for three minutes. On an unspecified date and following complaints of neighbouring residents that the ringing of the church bell disturbed their night’s rest, the applicant reduced the ringing of the church bell at 7.15 a.m. to one minute.

As neighbouring residents had also lodged repeated complaints with the Tilburg municipal authorities, requesting the latter to intervene in respect of the excessive ringing of the parish church bell at 7.15 a.m., the municipality carried out measurements of the sound levels involved. By letters of 16 February and 21 March 2007 the Tilburg Mayor and Aldermen (College van Burgemeester en Wethouders) issued warnings to the parish board, stating that the volume of the church bell ringing at 7.15 a.m. amounted to intolerable noise nuisance. The volume therefore had to be reduced and if the parish board failed to do so, an order for incremental penalty payments (last onder dwangsom) would be imposed, namely 5,000 euros (EUR) for each violation to a maximum amount of EUR 50,000. The matter had further been discussed in a meeting between the applicant and representatives of the municipality on 12 April 2007.

Since the parish board failed to reduce the volume of the ringing of the bell in the mornings – also after a further warning by the Mayor and Aldermen on 2 May 2007 – the Tilburg Mayor and Aldermen notified the parish board on 19 June 2007 of their intention to impose an order for incremental penalty payments if the volume of the ringing of the bell before 7.30 a.m. was not reduced. According to the Mayor and Aldermen, this order was based on section 110 § 1 of the 2005 general municipal bye-law (Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening; “APV”) in conjunction with section 10 of the Act on Public Manifestations (Wet Openbare Manifestaties; “WOM”). As set out in the letter accompanying the notice, the right to freedom of religion had been weighed against the interests of others in the community. It had been decided that the ringing of the church bell in the early morning at the volumes measured constituted intolerable noise nuisance. Failure by the parish board to reduce the sound level in the early morning would contravene section 110 § 1 of the APV. A formal decision to this effect, having noted and taken into account the applicant’s written comments on the notice of intention (zienswijze), was taken on 23 July 2007.

The objection (bezwaar) filed by the parish against this decision was rejected by the Mayor and Aldermen on 7 September 2007. The parish filed an appeal with the Breda Regional Court (rechtbank).

By judgment of 26 November 2007 the Breda Regional Court accepted this appeal. It stated at the outset that it assumed that the appeal had been filed solely by the parish and that all legal acts undertaken by the applicant in the proceedings on the objection and appeal were done in his capacity as representative of the parish board. It found that calls to worship by ringing church bells fell within the scope of the right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Netherlands Constitution (Grondwet) and that restrictions imposed on the ringing of church bells constituted an interference with that right. The municipality was nevertheless – on the basis of section 10 WOM and for the purposes of avoiding noise nuisance – authorised to lay down rules and regulations as regards the duration and volume of the ringing of church bells provided that these did not render illusory the use of church bells or restricted it unnecessarily. The Regional Court nonetheless quashed the impugned decision to impose penalty payments on the parish board since the legal provision on which it was based (section 110 § 1 APV) could not be applied to the ringing of (a) church bell(s). The Regional Court’s judgment became final since no further appeal was lodged against it.

In 2008 the Tilburg municipality decided to amend the APV in order to fix rules for ringing (a) church bell(s) and other means of calls to worship. On 1 May 2009, section 109a of the APV entered into force. This provision reads as follows: “Between 11 p.m. and 7.30 a.m. it is prohibited to issue a call to worship within the meaning of section 10 of the Act on Public Manifestations by ringing (a) church bell(s) or by other means if the volume exceeds the standards laid down in the Environmental Management (General Rules for Establishments) Decree (Besluit algemene regels voor inrichtingen milieubeheer; “Environmental Management Decree”) by more than 10 dB(A) and exceeds the reference volume of the surroundings by more than 10 dB(A).”

After new volume measurements had been taken on four different days in May 2009, the Mayor and Aldermen again issued official warnings to the parish board as regards the sound level of the ringing of the church bell in the early morning. Since the parish board was found to have failed to comply with the standards set out in section 109a of the APV, the Tilburg Mayor and Aldermen notified the parish board on 16 June 2009 of their intention to impose an order for incremental penalty payments on the parish board if it did not respect section 109a of the APV. Although invited to do so, the parish board did not file any written comments on the intention. A formal decision by the Mayor and Aldermen followed on 7 July 2009 by which an incremental penalty payment of EUR 5,000 (not exceeding a total amount of EUR 50,000) would be imposed for each time the parish disrespected section 109a of the APV after 29 July 2009.

Since the parish board and the applicant failed to respect the applicable volume standards when ringing the church bell, the Mayor and Aldermen imposed an order for incremental penalty payments on 23 October 2009. An objection – with the parties’ consent converted into a direct appeal to the Breda Regional Court – against this decision was lodged by the applicant.

By judgment of 20 October 2010 the Breda Regional Court rejected this appeal. It again found that the municipal authorities were entitled – on the basis of section 10 of the WOM – to fix rules for the duration and volume of calls to worship. Noting, inter alia, that no restrictions applied for ringing the church bell at issue between 7.30 a.m. and 11 p.m. and finding that it had not been demonstrated that it would be impossible to moderate the volume by making adjustments to the clapper, the Regional Court rejected the argument that the rules at issue rendered illusory the use of church bells for calls to worship.

The applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrecht) of the Council of State (Raad van State), was rejected on 13 July 2011. In so far as relevant, this ruling reads: “2.1. In accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law. Under the second paragraph of this provision, rules concerning the exercise of this right outside of buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by law for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders. Under section 10 of the WOM, ringing church bells in the context of religious ... ceremonies ... as well as for calls to worship ... is permitted. In this matter, the municipal council is competent to determine rules as regards duration and volume. Pursuant to section 109a of the APV it is prohibited between 11 p.m. and 7.30 a.m. to issue calls to worship within the meaning of section 10 of the Act on Public Manifestations by means of ringing (a) church bell(s) or by other means if the volume exceeds the standards laid down in the Environmental Management Decree by more than 10 dB(A) and exceeds the reference volume of the surroundings by more than 10 dB(A). Pursuant to section 2.18 § 1 (c) of the Environmental Management Decree, the sound for the purposes of calls to worship ... is not taken into consideration in the determination of sound levels, referred to in sections 2.17, 2.19 and 2.20… 2.3 The parish priest argues that the Regional Court has wrongfully found that section 109a of the APV is binding. According to the priest, the court has failed to appreciate that the Tilburg municipal council, in violation of section 10 of the WOM, has not given reasons for the necessity of determining a volume restriction for the period lasting from 11 p.m. to 7.30 a.m. This is even more cogent since the duration of this period renders the call to worship illusory or at least restricts this unnecessarily as the morning service starts at 7.30 a.m. and only 25% of the parishioners can be reached if the ringing of the church bell is muffled. In this connection, the priest further submits that muffling – in so far as possible in practice – requires a disproportionate effort on his part. The parish priest further argues that the fixed period is contrary to section 2.17 of the Environmental Management Decree because it is stipulated therein that the period of night lasts from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. In his opinion, the manner in which section 109a of the APV has been drafted furthermore results in legal uncertainty, because it cannot be deduced from this to what concrete sound volume standard of the Environmental Management Decree the ringing of (a) church bell(s) is bound. The parish priest claims that the only reason why the municipal council has chosen to have the period subjected to the restriction last until 7.30 a.m. is to oppose the church bell ringing in this concrete case. He therefore claims that section 109a of the APV does not serve the municipal interest but only the special interests of complaining neighbouring residents, thus rendering the provision also for this reason non-binding. 2.3.1. The second sentence of section 10 of the WOM confirms that ... the municipal council may determine rules for the duration and volume of ringing church bells for the purpose of issuing calls to worship. As appears from the drafting history of this provision, this form of church bell ringing forms part of the liturgy and can be regarded as a manifestation of religious beliefs which is protected by Article 6 of the Constitution… A reasonable interpretation of [this provision] entails that this right does not imply the freedom to ring church bells without any limits as regards duration and volume. The power described in the second sentence of section 10 of the WOM is aimed at the prevention of excesses where it concerns duration and volume. Legal rules determined for this purpose at a municipal level can, depending on local circumstances and needs, be adjusted to the occasions and times when the bells are to be rung. This kind of regulation of duration and volume within reasonable limits, without leading to a situation where a meaningful use of the ringing of the bell(s) no longer remains, must be considered as not restricting the freedom of religion… ” 2.3.2. The Regional Court has ... rightly considered that the municipal council did not act contrary to section 10, second sentence of the WOM by limiting the volume of the church bell ringing for part of the daily twenty-four hour period. It appears from the explanatory notice on section 109a of the APV that the municipal council chose to apply the prohibition contained in that provision between 11 p.m. and 7.30 a.m., because this is the time when most people enjoy their night’s rest. This night’s rest can be disturbed when calls to worship are made in a loud manner. Because a call to worship is a manifestation of everyone’s right to practise freely his or her religion, some noise nuisance must, according to the municipal council, be tolerated and the prohibition only applies to excessive forms of noise nuisance with a sound level that exceeds by more than 10 dB(A) the standard laid down in the Environmental Management Decree and by more than 10 dB(A) the sound level of the surroundings. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds that the municipal council has thus sufficiently reasoned why the hours at issue have been chosen and, after having weighed the interests involved, can be considered to have reasonably decided upon that time frame. The fact that church bell ringing at a lesser volume may reach a smaller number of parishioners to call them to attend the 7.30 a.m. morning mass than without such a restriction and that muffling the church bells meets with practical objections cannot lead to a finding that no use of any significance could be made of the bells. In this connection, the Regional Court has rightly considered that section 109a of the APV does not render illusory the possibility to practice religion as this provision does not make it impossible to ring the bells before 7.30 a.m. and no restrictions apply for the sound level of church bell ringing between 7.30 a.m. and 11 p.m. 2.3.3. In view of the above, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division subscribes to the finding of the Regional Court that section 109a of the APV does not go beyond the competence set out in section 10 § 2 of the WOM. 2.3.4. There is also no ground for holding that the choice of the period at issue violates the Environmental Management Decree. The Regional Court has rightly considered that it is not necessary to examine the compatibility of section 109a of the APV with the Environmental Management Decree as this provision finds its basis in the WOM and section 2.18 § 1 (c) of the Environmental Management Decree stipulates that sound for the purpose of issuing calls to worship is not taken into consideration in the determination of sound levels within the meaning of that Decree. It appears from the explanatory memorandum to that provision that this choice has been made, because the system of the Constitution in conjunction with the WOM was considered to be the appropriate framework for regulating the ringing of church bells, rather than regulation in the Environmental Management Decree. 2.3.5. Although the Environmental Management Decree is not directly applicable in respect of the permissible noise levels, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds that the municipal council was entitled to link it to the noise standards laid down in the Environmental Management Decree, as this indicates in an objective sense when one can speak about noise nuisance. Contrary to what has been argued by the parish priest, it appears sufficiently clearly from the text of section 109a of the APV, in which explicit reference is made to the norms set out in the Environmental Management Decree, what volume of church bell ringing is allowed during what part of the day… 2.3.6. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division also does not share the parish priest’s opinion that section 109a of the APV does not serve the municipal interest. That the regulation of the duration and volume of church bell ringing can be regarded as [pursuing] a municipal interest already follows from the second sentence of Article 10 of the WOM in which the competence of the municipal council on this point is confirmed. In this case, the municipal interest lies concretely in the protection of the inhabitants of the municipality against disturbance of their nights’ rest. The APV provision at issue applies to all religious and other bodies who are issuing calls – by the ringing of bells – to manifest a religion or belief. Although, as correctly pointed out by him, it was the church bell ringing by the parish priest which has led to the insertion into the APV of the provision at issue, this does not entail that no municipal interest was at stake. 2.3.7. In view of the above considerations, the Regional Court has correctly found that section 109a of the APV is not non-binding. The Regional Court has also rightly held that the municipal council – in view the noise measurements made – was correct in its finding that the parish priest had breached that provision, so that the municipal council was competent to act in a manner aimed at securing compliance with the rules.” No further appeal lay against this ruling.