1

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

MOLDOVA – ECHR: Property disputes and Orthodoxy: Orlović and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia

By Frank Cranmer

Law & Religion UK (08.10.2019) – https://bit.ly/2ATS4Jy  – Though the Iron Curtain came down in 1989/90 and the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia ended in the mid-1990s, outstanding property disputes between rival religious groups arising out of adherence to different jurisdictions or previous dispossession continue to take up the time of the courts – as the following two recent cases show.

In Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Nativity of the Virgin Mary Parish v The Republic of Moldova [2019] ECHR 658 [in French], the Nativity Parish had sought recognition in 2005 of its ownership of a plot of land in Mihalaşa to finalise the construction of a church. The court had acknowledged the Metropolitan Church’s right of ownership and the judgment had become final in November 2005.

 

According to the applicants, Act No. 979 of 1992 on cults, in force at the material time, was not explicit about the property rights of the Church as opposed to those of the Parish. In 2006 the land was registered to the Metropolitan Church and the Parish obtained a planning certificate to construct the church [1-9]. In 2009, however, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary Parish of the rival Orthodox Church of Moldova (under the Moscow Patriarchate) succeeded in overturning those decisions in the Bălţi Court of Appeal, which ordered a re-examination of the case [10-21]. The applicants complained that the Court of Appeal’s admission of the application for review and the annulment of the earlier judgment was, in fact, a disguised and improper appeal [22], while the Government argued that the purpose of the review had been to correct a miscarriage of justice [23].

 

The Court noted that the final judgment in 2005 in favour of the Metropolitan Church had been annulled after the admission of the application for revision from the Orthodox Church of Moldova. However, the domestic law at the material time had not provided such a ground for review, it did not appear that another ground had been raised, and the lower court had rejected the request because it had not revealed any of the grounds provided in Article 449 of the Code of Civil Procedure [25]. The Court of Appeal, however, had held that a registration certificate alleging ownership of the disputed land by the Assumption Parish was a new fact justifying a review [26].

It was clear both from law and practice that only new facts of essential importance to a case could justify a retrial. The certificate presented as a “new fact” had a different registration number and had apparently related to a different parcel of land, nor had the Bălţi Court of Appeal explained the relevance and importance of the alleged “new fact”. The certificate was not, therefore, a genuine piece of new evidence with which to resolve the case [27].

In reality, the review proceedings had indeed been a “disguised appeal” intended to obtain a new examination rather than the proper review provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure [29]. There had therefore been a violation Article 1 of Protocol No 1 ECHR (respect for property) [30]. As to the complaint under Article 6 (fair trial), there had been a violation in relation to the Nativity Parish, but not in relation to the Metropolitan Church itself [32].

In Orlović and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2019] ECHR 653, Annex 7 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which put an end to the 1992–95 war, guaranteed the free return of refugees to their homes and restitution of their property. To comply with it, the Republika Srpska (one of the two constituents of Bosnia and Herzegovina) enacted the Restitution of Property Act in 1998. Under it, the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees (“CRPC”) had granted the applicants full restitution in 1999, confirmed by a further decision of the Ministry for Refugees and Displaced Persons in 2001. Both were final and enforceable; but when the land was returned, a plot on which a church had been built was not.

 

The applicants failed in their administrative claim for repossession and in a civil suit against the Serbian Orthodox Church. In the meantime, in 2004 the Orthodox parish obtained planning permission for the church. The applicants complained that they had been prevented from using their property, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR (protection of property), because the church – built unlawfully – had not been removed from their land and that the domestic courts’ judgments in their civil claim had violated Article 6 (fair trial).

The Court noted that there was no dispute that the applicants owned the property and that, as internally displaced persons, they had been entitled under Annex 7 to the Framework Agreement to have their land restored. That right had been established in the decisions of 1999 and 2001 but the authorities had not implementing them, nor had the Government had given any justification for the authorities’ inaction. There had therefore been a violation of A1P1 and, given that finding, there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 6.

Further, to comply with Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the state had to enforce the CRPC’s and the Ministry for Refugees’ decisions – including, in particular, the removal of the church from the applicants’ land – without further delay and at the latest within three months of the judgment becoming final. The first applicant was awarded €5,000 and the others €2,000 each in respect of pecuniary damage. Judge Kjølbro expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

 

Frank Cranmer, “Property disputes and Orthodoxy: Orlović and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia” in Law & Religion UK, 8 October 2019, http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2019/10/08/property-disputes-and-orthodoxy-orlovic-and-metropolitan-church-of-bessarabia/





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA – ECHR: Serbian Orthodox church must be removed

Bosnia and Herzegovina must enforce decisions ordering removal of church built on Srebrenica genocide survivors’ land.

 

Registrar of the Court (01.10.2019) – https://bit.ly/2orGEtV – In today’s Chamber judgment 1 in the case of Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 16332/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

 

a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The case concerned a church built by the Serbian Orthodox Parish on the applicants’ land after they had had to flee their property during the 1992-95 war.

 

The Court found in particular that the authorities’ failure to comply with final and binding decisions of 1999 and 2001 ordering full repossession of the land by the applicants, without any justification on the part of the Government for such inaction, had seriously frustrated their property rights.

 

It also held, by six votes to one, under Article 46 (binding force and implementation) that the respondent State had to ensure enforcement of the two decisions in the applicants’ favour, including in particular the removal of the church from the applicants’ land, at the latest within three months of this judgment becoming final.

 

Principal facts

 

The applicants are a family of 14 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, born between 1942 and 1982. They live in Konjević Polje and Srebrenik, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They survive the first applicant’s husband and more than 20 other relatives who were killed in the Srebrenica genocide in 1995.

 

During the 1992-95 war they were forced to flee from their home in Konjević Polje. The property belonged to the first applicant’s husband and his brother and consisted of several individual and agricultural buildings, fields and meadows.

 

In 1998 a church was built on their land following expropriation proceedings in favour of the Drinjača Serbian Orthodox Parish. The applicants were never informed of those proceedings.

 

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Dayton Peace Agreement”) put an end to the 1992-95 war. In order to implement Annex 7 to the agreement, which guaranteed the free return of refugees to their homes of origin and restitution of their property, the Republika Srpska (one of the two constituent entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina) enacted the Restitution of Property Act in 1998.

 

The applicants brought restitution proceedings for their property under that Act. They were granted full restitution in a decision by the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees (“the CRPC”) in 1999, followed by another decision by the Ministry for Refugees and Displaced Persons in 2001. The decisions were both final and enforceable.

 

The land was subsequently returned to the applicants, except for a plot on which the church had been built. The applicants sought full repossession in the following years, without success.

 

The applicants also brought civil proceedings against the Serbian Orthodox Church seeking to recover possession of the plot of land and to have the church removed. In 2010 they modified their claim, asking the courts to recognise the validity of an out-of-court settlement. The lower courts dismissed the claim, finding that no agreement had been concluded between the parties, which was then confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014 and the Constitutional Court in 2017.

 

In the meantime in 2004, there were other developments including the construction inspectorate authorities issuing an order banning the use of the church, which the local deputy mayor opposed, and the Serbian Orthodox Parish requesting and obtaining planning permission for the church.

 

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

 

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that they had been prevented from effectively using their property because the unlawfully built church had not yet been removed from their land.

 

They also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) to complain about the domestic court decisions concerning their civil claim.

 

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 March 2018.

 

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

 

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark), President, Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Paul Lemmens (Belgium), Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Romania), Carlo Ranzoni (Liechtenstein), Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands), Péter Paczolay (Hungary), and also Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar.

 

Decision of the Court

 

It was not in dispute that the applicants were the owners of the property in question and that, as internally displaced persons, they had been entitled under Annex 7 to the Dayton Peace Agreement to have the land restored to them.

 

Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicants’ right to full restitution had been established in the decisions of 1999 and 2001 and that the authorities had been required to take practical steps to ensure enforcement. However, instead of implementing the decisions, the authorities had initially in 2004 – done the opposite by effectively authorising the church to remain on the applicants’ land.

 

Indeed, the applicants were still being prevented from full repossession of their property 17 years after ratification of the Convention and its protocols by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government had not given any justification for the authorities’ inaction. The Court considered that such a long delay clearly amounted to a refusal to enforce the decisions, which had left the applicants in a state of uncertainty.

 

As a result of the authorities’ failure to comply with the final and binding decisions, the applicants had suffered a serious frustration of their property rights and had been made to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden.

 

The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

 

Given that finding, the Court considered that there was no need to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article 6.

 

Binding force and implementation (Article 46)

 

The Court reiterated that, in order to help a State comply with its obligations under Article 46, it might exceptionally indicate individual and/or general measures that could be taken to put an end to the violation of the Convention it had found.

 

In the particular circumstances of the applicants’ case, the Court considered that the respondent State had to take all the necessary measures to ensure enforcement of the CRPC’s decision of 1999 and the Ministry for Refugees’ decision of 2001, including in particular the removal of the church from the applicants’ land, without further delay and at the latest within three months of this judgment becoming final.

 

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

 

The Court held, unanimously, that Bosnia and Herzegovina was to pay 5,000 euros (EUR) to the first applicant and EUR 2,000 to each of the remaining applicants in respect of pecuniary damage.

 

Separate opinion

 

Judge Jon Fridrik Kjølbro expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

 





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

GERMANY / ECHR: Holocaust denial is not protected by the European Convention on Human Rights

Registrar of the Court (03.10.2019) – In today’s Chamber judgment 1 in the case of Pastörs v. Germany (application no. 55225/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that

 

the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 (freedom of expression) was manifestly ill-founded and had to be rejected, and,

 

by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The case concerned the conviction of a Land deputy for denying the Holocaust during a speech in the regional Parliament.

 

The Court found in particular that the applicant had intentionally stated untruths to defame Jews. Such statements could not attract the protection for freedom of speech offered by the Convention as they ran counter to the values of the Convention itself. There was thus no appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights and the complaint was inadmissible.

 

The Court also examined a complaint by the applicant of judicial bias as one of the Court of Appeal judges who had dealt with his case was the husband of the first-instance judge. It found no violation of his right to a fair trial because an independent Court of Appeal panel with no links to either judge had ultimately decided on the bias claim and had rejected it.

 

Principal facts

 

The applicant, Udo Pastörs, is a German national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lübtheen (Germany).

 

On 28 January 2010, the day after Holocaust Remembrance Day, Mr Pastörs, then a member of the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, made a speech stating that “the so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes”. He also referred to a “barrage of criticism and propagandistic lies” and “Auschwitz projections”.

 

In August 2012 he was convicted by a district court, formed of Judge Y and two lay judges, of violating the memory of the dead and of the intentional defamation of the Jewish people.

 

In March 2013 the regional court dismissed his appeal against the conviction as ill-founded. After reviewing the speech in full, the court found that Mr Pastörs had used terms which amounted to denying the systematic, racially motivated, mass extermination of the Jews carried out at Auschwitz during the Third Reich. The court stated he could not rely on his free speech rights in respect of Holocaust denial. Furthermore, he was no longer entitled to inviolability from prosecution as the Parliament had revoked it in February 2012.

 

He appealed on points of law to the Court of Appeal which, in August 2013, also rejected his case as ill-founded. At that stage he challenged one of the judges adjudicating his appeal, Judge X, claiming he could not be impartial as he was the husband of Judge Y, who had convicted him at first instance. A three-member bench of the Court of Appeal, including Judge X, dismissed the complaint, finding in particular that the fact that X and Y were married could not in itself lead to a fear of bias.

 

Mr Pastörs renewed his complaint of bias against Judge X before the Court of Appeal, adding the other two judges on the bench to his claim. In November 2013 a new three-judge Court of Appeal panel, which had not been involved in any of the previous decisions, rejected his complaint on the merits. Lastly, the Federal Constitutional Court declined his constitutional complaint in June 2014.

 

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

 

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Pastörs complained about his conviction for the statements he had made in Parliament and alleged that the proceedings against him were unfair because one of the judges on the Court of Appeal panel was married to the judge who had convicted him at first instance and could therefore not be impartial.

 

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 July 2014.

 

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

 

Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), President, Angelika Nußberger (Germany), André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar.

 

Decision of the Court

 

Article 10 (freedom of Expression)

 

As with earlier cases involving Holocaust denial or statements relating to Nazi crimes, the Court examined Mr Pastörs’ complaint under both Article 10 and Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights).

 

It reiterated that Article 17 was only applicable on an exceptional basis and was to be resorted to in cases concerning freedom of speech if it was clear that the statements in question had aimed to use that provision’s protection for ends that were clearly contrary to the Convention.

 

The Court noted that the domestic courts had performed a thorough examination of Mr Pastörs’ utterances and it agreed with their assessment of the facts. It could not accept, in particular, his assertion that the courts had wrongfully selected a small part of his speech for review. In fact, they had looked at the speech in full and had found much of it did not raise an issue under criminal law.

 

However, those other statements had not been able to conceal or whitewash his qualified Holocaust denial, with the Regional Court stating that the impugned part had been inserted into the speech like “poison into a glass of water, hoping that it would not be detected immediately”.

 

The Court placed emphasis on the fact that the applicant had planned his speech in advance, deliberately choosing his words and resorting to obfuscation to get his message across, which was a qualified Holocaust denial showing disdain to its victims and running counter to established historical facts. It was in this context that Article 17 came into play as the applicant had sought to use his right to freedom of expression to promote ideas that were contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention. Furthermore, while an interference with freedom of speech over statements made in a Parliament deserved close scrutiny, such utterances deserved little if any protection if their context was at odds with the democratic values of the Convention system.

 

Summing up, the Court held that Mr Pastörs had intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered. The interference with his rights also had to be examined in the context of the special moral responsibility of States which had experienced Nazi horrors to distance themselves from the mass atrocities.

 

The response by the courts, the conviction, had therefore been proportionate to the aim pursued and had been “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court found there was no appearance of a violation of Article 10 and rejected the complaint as manifestly ill-founded.

 

Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)

 

The Court reiterated its subjective and objective tests for a court or judge’s lack of impartiality: the first focused on a judge’s personal convictions or behaviour while the second looked at whether there were ascertainable facts which could raise doubts about impartiality. Such facts could include links between a judge and people involved in the proceedings.

 

It held that the involvement in the case of two judges who were married, even at levels of jurisdiction which were not consecutive, might have raised doubts about Judge X lacking impartiality. It was also difficult to understand how the applicant’s complaint of bias could have been deemed as inadmissible in the Court of Appeal’s first review, which had included Judge X himself.

 

However, the issue had been remedied by the review of Mr Pastörs’ second bias complaint, which had been aimed at all the members of the initial Court of Appeal panel and had been dealt with by three judges who had not had any previous involvement in the case. Nor had the applicant made any concrete arguments as to why a professional judge married to another professional judge should be biased when deciding on the same case at a different level of jurisdiction.

 

There were thus no objectively justified doubts about the Court of Appeal’s impartiality and there had been no violation of Article 6.

 

Separate opinions

 

Judges Grozev and Mits expressed a joint dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1216

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1217

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1218

Jehovah’s Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih’s Ternivsky District v. Ukraine

ECHR Application no. 21477/10 – Full judgment: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#

Registrar of the Court (03.09.2019) – The applicant community is the Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih, Ternivsky District, Dnipropetrovsk Region.

 

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. The case concerned the community’s complaint that it had not been able to construct a building for worship on land it had purchased owing to the domestic authorities’ inactivity.

 

In 2004 the applicant community purchased a residential building in Kryvyi Rih in order subsequently to erect a place of worship, a “Kingdom Hall”, on the site. In February 2005 the city’s Architecture and Planning Council approved the placement of the Kingdom Hall on the land and seven months later the city’s planning authority submitted a draft decision to approve a land allocation project and to grant the applicant community a lease, but this plan was not adopted at subsequent City Council meetings.

 

In February 2007 the applicant community initiated a first set of proceedings against the City Council, seeking to have its lack of activity declared unlawful. In June 2007 the Regional Court allowed the claim, but in August 2007 a draft decision on the applicant community’s project failed to get enough votes to be adopted by the City Council.

 

In January 2008 the community lodged a second claim against the City Council for a declaration that it had the right to lease the plot of land and for the City Council to be ordered to enter into a lease agreement. In December 2008 the Regional Court rejected the claim, holding in particular that land allocation decisions fell within the exclusive competence of councils and that the courts could not replace the City Council and take the decision in its place. All further appeals by the religious community were rejected.

 

Relying in particular on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1, the applicant community alleged that the City Council’s failure to allow it to establish a place of worship had breached its rights.

 

Violation of Article 9 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

 

The European Court

  1. Declares, unanimously, the application admissible;
  2. Holds, by six votes to one,that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;
  3. Holds, unanimously,that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
  4. Holds, unanimously,that the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention raise no separate issue;
  5. Holds, unanimously,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant community, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant community, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

  1. Dismisses, unanimously,the remainder of the applicant community’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 September 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 


Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1261

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1261

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1262

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1262

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1263