Via
Court of First Instance -Skopje II
to the Appellate Court in Skopje

Reference: Reg. RG. no. 12/09

Subject: Complaint to the Decision for rejection to register into the court registry of “Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec”

After receiving Decision Reg. RG no. 12/09 of the Court of First Instance Skopje II, with which we are denied enlisting into the Only Court Registry of Churches, Religious Communities and Groups, within the legally foreseen court time frame we express this Appeal to the Court of Appeals in Skopje, with an objection to:

1. Languor of the Court of First Instance

2. Wrongly determined factual position

3. Wrong application of the provisions of the Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group

4. Vague rationale

5. Elementary violation of the guaranteed human rights and religious freedoms

The Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec, on 28 April 2009 submitted a request to the Court of First Instance Skopje II in Skopje for being enlisted into the Only court registry of churches, religious communities and religious groups in R. Macedonia. Although art. 14 of Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group (Official Gazette of RM no. 113 dated 20.09.2007) establishes only 8 days for the procedure of registration, we received a negative answer net before 30 July 2009, which is 90 days after the submission of the request.

It is unacceptable that the court tried to oblige the nominator with a letter from 10 July 2009, from 23 July 2009 and 24 July 2009 to enclose a certificate of citizenship for the person Vancho Jovchevski within 15 days, and which would not be older than 6 months from the day of the issue thereof. In the rationale the Court alleges that it did not manage to deliver the request to the person authorized since there was no address to which the court would be able to appropriately deliver all letters. To the contrary, the facts are as follows: In the Decision for the foundation of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec the seat thereof was legibly written, str. Kochanska no.2/23 in Bitola, and that address is mentioned in the statement of the appealed to decision. Which is to say, the court could not have and should not have been unfamiliar with the correspondence address, but it is our supposition that the court would like to provide a cover for its languor through this unaccomplished correspondence. A proof in support the aforesaid is that the court managed to find the submitter of the request, the Bishop of Stobi David Ninov and on the same day when the appealed to decision was issued, so that he might collect it, so the statement of the court that there was no correspondence address cannot be taken into consideration. In the ultimately unclear rationale of the court it remains unclear whether the court tried at all to deliver the abovementioned letters to a given address, or it just wrote letters so as to archive them? If there was an attempt to send the letters, which most probably did not happen, we would have received them, because we even receive mail without a written address, but only the name of the Archbishop Jovan or the name of our Church. However, if the court did not attempt to send that mail to any given address, which is the most probable development, is not that merely covering for the languor and unprofessional behaviour of the judge in the procedure, who, we are informed, is complained at by other religious organizations that tried to register as well?

The court, with a request RG. 12 dated 10 July 2009 addressed the Macedonian orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric, so that the same would deliver a report regarding the meaning of the term “Patriarchate of Pec”, is it a religious community, and if it is a religious entity, where does the same belong, and which territorial-canonic field does it conduct its religious work?

Further in the text we shall address the answer received from the MOC, but here we would like to inform the Court of Appeals that an inadmissable legal ommission has been done. Namely, the explanation of some terms, conditions or actions, in one word expert testimony of any sort, the court asks for experts, not persons concerned in the proceeding. This is an elementary right of the legal proceeding. In this case , in the first article of the Decision for the foundation of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec it is said: “This decision is for the purpose of registering “Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec” in the registry of churches, religious communities and religious groups in the Republic of Macedonia, as a voluntary, unprofitable communion of believing people with Christian religious persuasion, who do not belong to any registered religious community, and have nothing in common with the Macedonian Orthodox Church.” (See the documents of the Decision for foundation)

This means that we have previously introduced the court to the fact that we do not wish to have anything in common with the MOC, and the court neglects this fact and sends a request to the MOC, with which as if it is asking for their agreement to our registration. Someone might think that in this case we sould not mention articles from the Law on protection of competition, but then the court should not use as evidence the answer from the MOC, which is that they have protected the name Ohrid Archbishopric in the State Institute for Industrial Property under TM. No. 2004/578, an irregularity which shall be addressed further in the text. Where else has it happened, except for the appealed to decision, that one of the parties interested in the proceedings is simultaneously an expert witness as well? And just how interested the MOC is in the non-registration of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec is known to the entire public in the R. Macedonia, however, if the Court of Appeals is not familiar with this issue, we are prepared to submit additional evidence.

Despite the fact that the court had no right to require interpretation of terms used in the name Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec by the MOC, the court made an even worse mistake in establishing the factual situation by not establishing the reliability of the answers recieved by the MOC. Namely, the court establishes that the Macedonian Orthodox Church was registered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs with certificate no. 30-2468/1 dated from 22 February 1983, and later it was reregistered according to the Law on Religious communities and groups by the Republic Commission for Relations with the Religious Communities with certificate no. 12-152/3 dated from 12 January 1998, under the name Macedonian Orthodox Church. It is obvious that in both these cases the Macedonian orthodox Church was registered under the name: “Macedonian Orthodox Church”, and not under the name “Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric”, as it was enlisted in the Only Court Registry of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups, in accordance with the new Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and group (Official Gazette of RM no. 113 dated from 20 September 2007). In the registering the Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric according to the new Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group, with decision Reg. C. 1/08 dated 11 November 2008 an utterly crude falsification was made. Namely, the name Macedonian Orthodox Church, through an illegal procedure, was added the name: Ohrid Archbishopric. The procedure is illegal because of the following reasons: According to art. 200 of the Constitution of the MOC, which reads: “The Archbishopric Church-People’s Council determines the text of each provision – article of the proposed new Constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, namely, the proposal to ammend and supplement this Consitution. After determining the text of each provision (article), ACPC shall proclaim with a decree the new Constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, that is the ammendments and supplements of the Constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church”, the only one who can change the constitutional name of the MOC is the Archbishopric Church-People’s Council. The entire public of R. Macedonia is familiar with the fact that at the Church-People’s Council held on 4 and 5 October 2008 in Kalishta, near Struga, the ammendment of the Constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was not accepted. In support of this we enclose the following media reports: A1, dated 4 October 2008, Sitel, dated 4 October 2008, Dnevnik, dated 6 October 2008, and Utrinski Vesnik, dated 6 October 2008. All of these reports indisputably highlight that the дека Church-People’s Council, which is the only one with the mandate, as per the aforesaid artcle from the Constitution of the MOC, to ammend the same, did not do so. Which is to say, Church-People’s Council of the MOC did adopt changes of the name MOC into Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric. How is it called then, according to the judicial terminology when someone, be it even a judge, registered the MOC into the Only registry of churches, religious communities and groups in R. Macedonia, under Reg. C. no. 1/08 dated from 11 November 2008 under the name Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric? Based on what legal act was the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which starting from 1958 carries the name Macedonian Orthodox Church, registered as Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric? The court was familiar with the manner in which the MOC could change the name, because the Constitution of the MOC is a Rulebook of a religious organization, necessary to enclose to the court at registration, in accordance with art. 12, it. 2 of the latest Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and group, and MOC was to do that as per art.11 of the previous Law on religious communitites from 1997. Besides that, the Constitution of the MOC, in its last revision from 1994, is used by the court on several occasions and quotes articles from the same, as if this is a law according to which our registration should be validated. It has been known that with a decision of the Church-People’s Council from 1958, the MOC is called Macedonian Orthodox Church. This name has not been changed even by the last Church-people’s council held on 4 and 5 October 2008. Only 30 days later, on 11 November 2008, the court, with Reg. C. no.1/08, enlists the MOC in the Only court registry of churches, religious communities and religious groups under the name: Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric.

The explanation of the court regarding the protection of the name Ohrid Archbishopric in the State Institute for Industrial Property by the Macedonian Orthodox Church with TM no. 2004/578 is completely beyond the meaning of the respect for the Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group. Namely, according to art. 124 par.1 of the Law on Industrial property: “A trade mark shall protect a sign which could be graphically presented and which is appropriate for distinguishing between goods or services supplied by a participant in the turnover of goods or services to another participant in the turnover.” In the general provisions of art. 1 of the abovementioned Law it is said: “This law regulates acquisition, realization and protection of the rights of industrial property.” The mixing of the law on industrial property with the law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group is like comparing apples and oranges. It is clear that the protection of the name with a trade mark is of importance only in the commercial turnover, but what meaning could it have regarding the religious communities, humanitarian organizations, or some other institutions which are not subject to commercial turnover? However, just to show that the court did not explore the reliability of this fact either we sent a request to the State Institute for Industrial Property to search the databases for titlecarrier: Macedonian Orthodox Church. The Institute answered that: the MOC sent an application no TM. 2004/574 dated 06 August 2004 in order to protect the name: Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric, application no.TM 2004/575 dated from 06 August 2004 for the name: Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC), application no. TM 2004/576 dated from 06 August 2004, for the name: Macedonian Archbishopric, application no. ТМ 2004/577 dated from 06 August 2004, for the name: Macedonian Patriarchate, application no. TM 2004/578 dated from 06 August 2004, for the name: Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric, application no. TM 2004/579 for the name: Orthodox Ohrid Patriarchate, application no. 2004/580 for the name: Orthodox Skopje Metropolis, application no. 2004/581 for the name: Orthodox Skopje Archbishopric, application no. 2004/582 for the name: Orthodox Skopje Patriarchate, application no. TM 2004/583 for the name: Justiniana Prima, application no. TM 2004/584 for the name: Skopje Orthodox Diocese, application no. TM 2004/585 for the name: Prespa-Pelagonia and Bitola Orthodox Diocese, application no. TM 2004/586 for the name: Bregalnitza and Shrip Orthodox Diocese, application no. TM 2004/587 for the name: Debar–Kichevo Orthodox Diocese, application no. TM 2004/588 for the name: Polog–Kumanovo Orthodox Diocese, application no. TM 2004/589 for the name: Vardar Valley and Veles Orthodox Diocese, application no. TM 2004/ 590 for the name: Strumitza and Poljana Orthodox Diocese. The Macedonian Orthodox Church was supposed to pay the foreseen trade mark tax within 6 months. It has not done so even up until today. We presume that it was for some “high state interest” that the State Institute for Industrial Property still holds the applications on the list of registered trade marks, even though after so many years of not paying the tax, those should have automatically been excluded from this list. Yet, all of the abovementioned trademarks never entered the list of registered trademarks and according to art. 148 of the Law on industrial property they never received a certificate for a trademark.

The court, without any verification, completely amateurish, uses the interpretations the MOC gives in their answer to the court on 21 July 2009. The term “Patriarchate of Pec” regarding which the court asked for an interpretation by the MOC is a general term, it is used in all, even in the smallest, encyclopedias, and on many internet pages, and the court decided to consider as valid the explanation of this term by exactly the MOC, not by a skilfull person, although, as we said before, the last is interested in the non-registration of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec. If the court had a need to interpret this term, although it is accepted in the general communication and general knowledge, it could have done it through the Institute for Macedonian Language “Krste Misirkov” in Skopje, which has competence over such interpretations.

Besides being able to see from the aforesaid that the court wrongly established the factual situation, it also wrongly applies the law. Namely, the first interpretation of the court has nothing to do with reality: “a founding Assembly of natural persons where a decision for establishing a voluntary community with a name designated in the request has not been done, and the submitted request for registering the refered to religious entity is a result of a decision reached by a body-agency, the so-called Holy Synod of Bishops.” This Holy Synod of Bishops is a body which stems from the Rulebook on the arrangement of the status, organization and operation of the Greek-Orthodox Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec which we encloced with the request (see: Rulebook…), however, the same has no right to legal action since it is not a legal person, and it is utterly arbitrary to treat it as any sort of body before registering the religious organization. If the court interprets according to this analogy, then the mere name Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec would be a name for a legal entity, but it is not so until its registration. This means that undoubtedly the founders of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec are natural persons, the ones signed in the Minutes of the founding session. Every other interpretation testifies only of political pressure over the court to delay the registration of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec. It is very insolent of the court to say that a founding session had not been held, while the signatures of three natural persons, with a name and surname, a place of residence and unique identification number stand in the Minutes of the founding session. It would be a lesser insult if the court would say: “We do not want to register you”, than mindleslly altering the facts and interpreting the same arbitrarily.

The explanation given by the court under number two is completely incomprehensible. It seems that the court is not satisfied by the name under which a registration is asked for, but it does not give any serious explanation as regards the reason for this. If the name Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec does not indicate a name of a religious organization, then do the names: Sayta Say Center, registered in the Only court registry of churches, religious communities and groups under Reg. VZ no. 5/08, or: Reformed movement of the Adventists of the Seventh Day, recorded under Reg. RG. No. 9/08, indicate more a name of a religious organization. Every single word of the name Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec carries a religious significance, and this is something familiar from general knowledge. It is true that during the communist times some judges did not acquire this general culture, but this defficiency is very noticable in reference to matters of freedom of religious confession. We deem it as utterly irresponsible by the court of first instance to ask for an interpretation of the term Patriarchate of Pec by the MOC, or to say that the name Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec does not indicate a religious community.

Since from before we submitted the request we were familiar with the “expertise” of the judge appointed for the subjects of registration, as well as of the politicall pressure this judge endures so as not to register us, we have done everything in our power to make her job easier, so we wrote in our request: “The meaning of the law and its application confirms the reality. Regarding this we are prepared to explain everything that the court might find unclear in a further correspondence, so as the request would not be rejected unfoundedly, as it has been done to several religious communitiest that seeked registration.” (see: Request for registration). The aforesaid means that we have imlied to our preparedness ti alter anything that the court might deem not to be in accordance with the law, however, it is clear that the judge had no intention to register us under any condition, so this is the only stance that gives reason to the arbitrary interpretations that the court gives. Article 1 of the Rulebook for arrangement of the status, organization and operation of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec, which is only partialy paraphrased by the court says: “The Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec is a divinely established insititution headed by the Lord Jesus Christ and inseperably, dogmatically related to all other Orthodox Churches of Christ”. We must say that the paraphrasing of the court where it omits the fact which states that “theGreek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec is a divinely established insititution headed by the Lord Jesus Christ” and that the same is “inseperably, dogmatically related to all other Orthodox Churches of Christ” (see: art. 1 of the Rulebook) is insolent. In art. 1 of the of the Decision for the foundation of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec it is said: “The Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec is and Orthodox Church and as such it is in full canonic and liturgical communication with all recognized orthodox churches in the world. This is why we deem that we should be registered as a Church, however, if the court deems otherwise, we are prepared to be registered either as a religious community, or as a religious group.” (see, art. 1 of the Decision for foundation).

In what other words could we have explained to the court that we are talking about a Church? We performed an electronic calculation in the paperwork we submitted and found that we have used the word Church 36 times, and after all of this was it not clear to the court that we wished to be registered as a Church? The fact that the judge calls the decision for foundation of the Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec , the rulebook and the other acts so-called, that she calls the signatories: so-called, is obviously a sociological problem of the judge and we shall not appeal to that.

The culmination of unprofessionalism and irresponsibility of the court is the third interpretation, which reads: “Having this in mind, with the submitted request, by appointing the name “Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec” to the religious entity a violation of the law is made by using the name “Greek-” which is a translation of the words “Orthodox-Church” in the English speaking areas”, which, according to the court, was opposed to art. 10, par. 3 of the Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group, which reads: “For the name “Macedonia” a written approval is required by the Ministry of justice”. We leave to the court to characterize the logic of the abovementioned third interpretation of the court, we shall just hold on to the fact that the court shuld have pointed to the dictionary it used to reveal that the word “Greek-” is a translation of the words “Orthodox Church” in the English language. Like this we consider the claim to be incorrect, and the knowledge of the English language of the judge to be unsatisfactory. However, let us say that “the pigs fly” and that Greek- means Orthodox Church, what has any of that got to do with art. 10, par. 3 of the Law and the usage of the name Macedonina?

In art. 10 par. 1 of the Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and group it is said: “The name and official symbols of every new church, religious community and religious group should be different from the name and official symbols of already registered churches, religious communities and religious groups.” Precisely in order to respect this article we waited for almost a year (since the court is very diligent) to check the court registry before submitting the request for registration, ad after noticing that the name: Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec has not been registered in the court registrywe decided to submit a request under this name, and in the Minutes of the foundation we recorded: “After verifying in the court registry of churches, religious communities and groups in R. Macedonia, on 6 April 2009, and after establishing that no church, religious community and religious group uses this name, we reach a decision for the foundation of “Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec” as per art. 12 of the Law on churches, religious communities and religious groups. This, by itself means that Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec is not the same with any existing religious organization in R. Macedonia, and is particularly different from the Macedonian Orthodox Church, with which we do not accept any association”. (see: Minutes).

The difference in the name between Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec and Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric (which we pointed out previously) is much greater than the difference between the names: “Christian Adventist church (church of the Adventist of the Seventh day) in the Republic of Macedonia”, recorded in the registry with Reg. C. no. 4/08 and the “Christian Adventist church in Macedonia”, recodrded in the registry with Reg. C. no. 5/08. Everyone knows that as far as names are concerned even if a single letter is different, then there is a difference in names, otherwise no religious community that calls itself a church would be able to be registered because the name would be the same with another community that uses the name church. And there are ten such communities registered with the name church in the Only Court Registry of Churches, Religious Communities and Groups. But, ultimately, if the court considered the name to be a problem, it might have pointed that out in the written correspondence, and we would answer to that. This only makes it klear that under whichever name we requested registration, the court would reject it. You will probably witness this as well, because the appeals shall be addressed to you.

It is impossible for us not to object to the interpretation of the court that the MOC – Ohrid Archbishopric was a consititutionally established religious community. It is correct that the MOC is mentioned in ar. 19 par. 3 of the Consititution of the Republic of Macedonia, but not with the added falsification – Ohrid Archbishopric. The rushing of the court into assessments of theologic and historical issues, without asking for expert opinions, seems like an attempt to judicial interpretation of the core fusion of atomic energy, without the aid of experts from the field. To say, just as the court does, that the MOC used the name Ohrid Archbishopric in continuity of 800 years and thet only it has the right to this name, is utterly unserious, not to say, provokes ridicule. Besides that, the court had no need to enter such theologic and historical issues, since it was not the subject of our request for registration.

The culmination of the arbitrary and completely unprofessional, as well as utterly twisted interpretations by the court are the explanations of the canonic jurisdiction of the MOC and the Patriarchate of Pec. These interpretations make the appealed to decision an ecclesiastical-canonic appology of the MOC, not a court decision reached by the law. According to which article is the court’s interpretation of the rights to a canonical jurisdiction on the territory of R. Macedonia? There is no article of the Law which requires the Church, or another religious community to be in unity with other Churches in the world. If there was such an article, then this law would have been unconstitutional, and we would have submitted an initiative for constitutional reexamination. Opposed to this, the interpretation of the court is unconstitutional, since the constitution guarantees the freedom of religious confession, and the appealed to decision limits it. There is almost no religion in the world which has not spread across the planet, thus the interference of the court into canonical disputes is not only unconstitutional, but in the century in which we live in, the twenty-first after Christ, it is considered uncivilized and presumptious. So as not to burden this appeal with evidence which are not subject to the Law, we shall point out to the court only the following: the Roman-Catholic Church in the Republic of Macedonia, registered under C. no. 2/08 does not have nearly as much autonomy from the Roman-Catholic Church, seated in Rome, as the Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec has from the Serbian Orthodox Church. The heaedquarters of the Evangelical-Methodist Church registered under C. no. 3/08 is in Switzerland and we chall only remind the court that the burial of the former President of the Republic of Macedonia, Boris Trajkovski, was performed by a bishop from the headquarters of this church from Switzerland. One does not need to be a theologian to know that the seats of the Christian Adventist Church (the Church of the Adventists of the Seventh Day) in the Republic of Macedonia, recorded in the registry under Reg. C. 4/08 and the seat of the Christian Adventist Church in Macedonia, recorded in the registry under Reg. C. no. 5/08, are in the USA.

How long, honourable court, shall our state violate the fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed and guaranteed by the international conventions human rights to freedom of religious confession?

The essential message of this appeal is the violation of the religious freedom in the R. Macedonia. This is why we ask of this court to seriously take into consideration the issues mentioned in the paperwork submitted for the registration of Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec, as well as this appeal. Our findamental rights, guaranteed to every person born on this planet, are continually broken for 7 years now. It is a free determination which religion to confess. We ak you to answer us why we do not have these rights, are we a lower cast of citizens of this state? If you tell us that we have those rights then it is necessary to inform us how to realize them, because it is obvious that the court denies them to us in this instance. Not long ago it was the executive bodies, and now the court continues the discrimination, in a manner very similar to the totalitarian societies. IN THE REQUEST WE IMPLIED THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO EFFECT ALL NECESSARY DRAW-BACKS WHICH SHALL BE REQUIRED OF US BY THE COURT, JUST SO IT WOULD REGISTER OUR CHURCH. However, instead of pointing out our weaknesses the court writes decisions in the form of theological tractates in defence of the MOC. Thw only condition to which we cannot be forced is to be together with the MOC. WE ARE PREPARED FOR ANYTHING ELSE THE COURT MIGHT INDICATE. UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, ACCEPTED BY US, AS WE HAVE WRITTEN IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION, THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO REGISTER US. HONOURABLE JUDGES, UNDERSTAND THAT THE REGISTRATION OF OUR CHURCH SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON YOUR MERCY, IT IS A GUARANTEED RIGHT. And yet, if you would want us to beg, we are prepared to do even that, have mercy before our tears and sighs, give us our freedom of religious confession, because if you deny us these rights, it is the same as denying us the air, water and bread. What insolence it is not to allow us freedom of choice of religion, and what madness to forcefully push us into unity with the MOC whith which we wish to have no communion. After this sentimental part, which we deem is more essential than all other segments, for it is intended to awaken the conscience of the ones’ whose it has fallen asleep, we remind you that with this rejection to register us, not only art. 3 and art. 4 par. 1 of the Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and group are violated, but art. 16 and 19 of the Constitution of R. Macedonia are continuously violated for seven years, as well as art. 18 of the Universial Declaration for Human Rights and art. 9 of the European Convention for human rights, mentioned in the appealed to decision, out of context, but which are in fact applicable in our appeal.

Still, yet, the appealed to decision, crudely violates the rights of the nationalities, as well, guaranteed with art. 48 of the Constitution of the R. Macedonia. Namely, in abovementioned article, par. 2, reads: “The Republic guarantees the protection of the ethnic, cultural, lingustic and religious identity of the nationalities.” Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec , as may be noticed from its name, has the authority to protect the religious identity of the orthodox Greeks and Serbs in the R. Macedonia. The religious freedom of the Greeks and Serbs who do not wish to fulfill their religious needs in the MOC have been denied, and not only those guaranteed with the articles of the Constitution which guarantee them to the other citizens of the R. Macedonia, but also the rights regarding art. 48 par. 2, where the religious rights of the nationalities are guaranteed.

As far as the fourth interpretation by the court is concerned, where it summarizes and points out the articles of the Law which have been violated in our request according to the court, we deem that with the aforesaid we have proven to the court, before which we express this appeal, that all those articles have been wrongfully applied by which a wrongful application of the provisions of the Law on the legal position of a church, religious community and religious group has been made.

We deem the claim of the court that we have not enclosed a decision about the representative of the Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec to be an utter twisting of the truth. The request istself lists the enclosing to the court and everything we have submitted is written there (see: no. 7 of the list of enclosed documents in the Request for registration). The Court did not have a comment regarding the ommission of a document in the ones listed as enclosed with the request. However, even if there were procedural omissions, for which we dutifully claim that were not made, because we have a good practice in the type of documents necessaty for registration, should the court have rejected the request without an attempt by the court to establish through a correspondence which the procedural omissions are? This would be done only if the court had premeditated not to register us, and everything else is “let’s find a flaw”.

Because of all of the abovementioned, we suggest the Appelate court to discard the appealed to decision and to register Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Pec in the Only Court Registry of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups.

WE ASK THE COURT NOT TO DISCARD OUR APPEAL IF IT DEEMS THERE IS SOMETHING LACKING. ALL THAT IS LACKING AND IS ESTABLISHED AS SUCH BY THE COURT WE ARE PREPARED TO CORRECT, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COURT, JUST SO WE WOULD BE REGISTERED AND THUS END THE MALTREATMENT AND DISCRIMINATION ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS WE ENDURE FOR SEVEN YEARS. WE ARE PREPARED TO DO EVERYTHING THE COURT WOULD ASK US TO ONLY TO STOP THE VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS, MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF R. MACEDONIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.

So that there will not be any further misunderstandings regarding the correspondence address, we notify the court that all coorespondence may be conducted through the following address:

ul. Kochanska 2/23

7000 Bitola

We enclose:

- Internet version of the news from A1 dated from 4 October 2008

- Internet version of the news from Sitel dated from 4 October 2008

- Internet version of the news from Dnevnik dated from 6 October 2008

- Internet version of the news from Utrinski Vesnik dated from 6 October 2008

06 August 2009 Submitter of the appeal

BISHOP

+ of Stobi and Administrator of Strumitza, David