The European Court of Human Rights has handed down opinions in two cases involving the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses. The official opinion in each is available only in French. Excerpts below are from unofficial translations:
In Velev and Others v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, June 9, 2026), the court held that a Bulgarian town's prohibition on door-to-door religious propaganda violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:
67. The Court is prepared to accept that the measure at issue pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and in particular the right to respect for the home and private life of the inhabitants of the municipality of Shumen.
68. It therefore remains to be determined whether the interference was 'necessary in a democratic society'....
69. ,,, [T]he prohibition at issue is general and absolute. It is not limited to coercive, intrusive or abusive behaviour, but targets indiscriminately any form of "religious propaganda" in the homes of residents. Door-to-door preaching is an essential manifestation of Jehovah's Witnesses .... . A general prohibition of such a practice therefore calls for a particularly rigorous examination of proportionality.
70. ... [T]he domestic authorities have not demonstrated the existence of specific or repeated disturbances of such gravity as to justify such a broad measure.... [I]n a democratic society characterized by pluralism and tolerance, the mere fact of being exposed to religious ideas or convictions that one does not share cannot in itself justify a general prohibition of peaceful missionary activities.
The court issued a press release announcing the decision. EWTN also reports on the decision.
In Jehovah's Witnesses Christian Congregation v. Italy, (ECHR, June 11, 2026), the court held that the refusal of Italy to enter into an agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses that would allow it to share in tax revenues constitutes religious discrimination in violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court rejected the government's arguments that Jehovah's Witnesses' positions on blood transfusions, military service and voting justify the state's refusal. The court said in part:
62. ... [W]hile freedom of religion does not imply that churches or their followers must be accorded a tax status different from that of other taxpayers..., the Court has already held that where the national authorities grant tax privileges to certain communities without necessarily being bound to do so by Article 9 of the Convention, they must also comply with Article 14 of the Convention.... Thus, once the State voluntarily decides to grant religious organizations a right to subsidies and other benefits – which right then falls within the broader scope of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention – the measures it takes to grant such benefits cannot be discriminatory....
75.... [T]he Court considers that the applicant is in a situation comparable to that of registered religious communities which have concluded an agreement with the State under Article 8 of the Constitution. It therefore remains to be determined whether the difference in treatment at issue is based on an objective and reasonable justification under Article 14 of the Convention....
95.... The Court considers that it has not been shown that the difference in treatment between the applicant and the religious cults which may have concluded agreements with the Italian State was based on an 'objective and reasonable justification'.
Two judges filed a concurring opinion saying in part that "the Court should ... have focused ... on the lack of sufficient safeguards against discriminatory treatment...."
The court issued a press release announcing the decision and providing additional information on the court's reasoning. Courthouse News Service also reports on the decision.
