European Court: Lithuania Should Have Provided Civilian Service Alternative To Jehovah's Witness

In Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, (ECHR, June 7, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Lithuania violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention On Human Rights when it refused to grant a Jehovah's Witness deacon alternative service under civilian control. The petitioner has religious objections to military service or any alternative service controlled, supervised or directed in any way by the military, or which supports military activity. Lithuania only provides alternative national defense service under military supervision. The court concluded:

the Court finds that the system in Lithuania failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of society and those of the applicant who has deeply and genuinely held beliefs.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

In a 6-1 Chamber Judgment in Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, June 7, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia's forced dissolution of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organizations, banning of Jehovah's Witness religious literature and international website on charges of extremism, banning distribution of their religious magazines, criminal prosecution of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, and confiscation of their property violate protections for freedom of religion, expression and assembly found in Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other protections. The Court said in part:

152. The first ground for declaring the Taganrog LRO to be an “extremist” organisation was the charge that its texts stoked religious hatred by casting “traditional” Christian denominations in a negative light, undermining respect for their religious figures, urging people to leave those religions, and proclaiming the superiority of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses....

153.  The Court reiterates that preference for one’s own religion, the perception of it as unique and the only true one or as a “superior explanation of the universe” is a cornerstone of almost any religious system, as is the assessment of the other faiths as “false”, “wrong” or “not conducive to salvation”....  In the absence of expressions that seek to incite or justify violence or hatred based on religious intolerance, any religious entity or individual believers have the right to proclaim and defend their doctrine as the true and superior one and to engage in religious disputes and criticism seeking to prove the truth of one’s own and the falsity of others’ dogmas or beliefs....

154.  ... [I]n a pluralist and democratic society, those who exercise their right to freedom of religion ... cannot reasonably expect to be shielded from exposure to ideas that may offend, shock or disturb. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.... Religious people may be genuinely offended by claims that others’ religion is superior to theirs. However, just because a remark may be perceived as offensive or insulting by particular individuals or groups does not mean that it constitutes “hate speech”....

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the lengthy opinion. 

European Court Says Anti-LGBT Mob Led By Priest and Others Violated European Convention

In Women's Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia, (ECHR, Dec. 16, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Georgia's failure to protect LGBT demonstrators from mob violence violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."  Demonstrators who were marking International Day Against Homophobia were met with violent counter-demonstrators from a so-called Prayer Rally led in part by a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church. Counter demonstrators included priests and parishes from various churches in Tbilisi. The Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of Krishna Movement, Vaishnavism and Unification Church

As reported by Courthouse News Service, yesterday in Chamber Judgments, Russia lost two separate freedom of religion cases in the European Court of Human Rights.

In Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness In Russia and Frolov v. Russia, (ECHR, Nov. 23, 2021), the court held that a hostile description of the Krishna movement in government brochure titled “Watch out for cults!” violated petitioner's rights:

The Court considers that, even where the measures taken by the Government did not actually restrict the applicants’ freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice, the hostile terms which the State authorities used to describe their movement may have had negative consequences for them and constitute an interference with their rights under Article 9 § 1 of the Convention.

The court also held that the rights of freedom of religion and assembly were violated when the District government refused permission for a meeting to promote the teaching of Vaishnavism.

In Corley and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, Nov. 23, 2021), the court held that the enforced departures of two religious workers were designed to prevent the spread of the Unification Church's teachings in Russia, in violation of various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

European Court Says Tabloid Coverage Of Deceased Priest Violated Privacy Rights

In M.L. v. Slovenia, (ECHR, Oct. 14, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 (Respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated when Slovenian courts rejected claims that the mother of a deceased Roman Catholic priest brought against three newspapers. The son had been convicted in 1999 and 2002 on charges growing out of homosexual conduct. The son died in 2006, apparently of suicide. In 2008, three tabloid newspapers published sensationalized stories about the son's life. The Court said in part:

[I]t was crucial in the present case that the domestic courts make a careful assessment of the presence and level of public interest in the publishing of the information in question, and that the domestic courts strike a balance between any such public interest and the applicant’s individual interests....

[T]he domestic courts failed to carry out a balancing exercise between the applicant’s right to private life and the newspaper publishers’ freedom of expression in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law.

The Court awarded damages of 5000 Euros plus costs.  The Spectator reports on the decision.

British Court Says Fetus Has No Rights Under European Convention On Human Rights

In The Queen (on the Application of Crowter) v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, (EWHC, Sept. 23, 2021), a 2-judge High Court panel in Britain rejected an attack on provisions in the Abortion Act 1967 that permit late-term abortions where "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped...." This has been interpreted to include Down syndrome fetuses. The court rejected claims that this provision violates various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

the European Court has never decided that a foetus, even one post-viability, is the bearer of Convention rights.... To the contrary, it has been content to leave the controversial and difficult issue of when life begins to the margin of appreciation of Contracting States. The fact that both domestic legislation and courts, and the European Court itself, have recognised that there may be circumstances in which the foetus has interests which the State is entitled to protect does not lead to the proposition that it enjoys rights under Article 2.

The court also issued a press summary of the case. Law & Religion UK also reports on the decision.

European Court Says Lithuania Should Have Recognized Pagan Group

In Ancient Baltic Religious Association of  Romuva v. Lithuania, (ECHR, June 8, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) violated Articles 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to grant the status of a State‑recognized religious association to Romuva.  Romuva is a community following traditional Baltic pagan beliefs. The court noted that the Lithuanian Bishops Conference opposed recognition of Romuva.  The court concluded:

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that maintaining true religious pluralism is vital to the survival of a democratic society .... The role of the authorities is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other....

... [W]hen refusing to grant State recognition to the applicant association, the State authorities did not provide a reasonable and objective justification for treating the applicant association differently from other religious associations that had been in a relevantly similar situation, and the members of the Seimas who voted against the granting of State recognition did not remain neutral and impartial in exercising their regulatory powers.

The Wild Hunt reports on the decision.

European Court Says That Bulgaria Should Have Recognized Break-Away Orthodox Churches

In a case decided last month, Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, April 21, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Bulgaria had violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register a church adhering to the Old Calendarist variant of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Bulgarian courts relied on a provision in the Religious Denominations Act of 2002 providing that persons who had seceded from a registered religious institution before the Act’s entry into force in breach of that institution’s internal rules could not use the name of that institution. The European Court said in part:

62. Requiring a religious organisation seeking registration to take on a name which is not liable to mislead believers and the general public ... can in principle be seen as a justified limitation on its right freely to choose its name.... But the names of the applicant church and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were not identical, the applicant church’s name being sufficiently distinguished by the words “Old Calendar”. It is well known that Old Calendarist churches, which first appeared in the 1920s, when some Eastern Orthodox churches switched from the Julian Calendar to the Revised Julian Calendar, are distinct from those Eastern Orthodox churches.... Moreover, nothing suggests that the applicant church wished to identify itself with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church....

63.  In so far as the Government argued that the overlap between the beliefs and practices of the applicant church and of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was also a bar to the applicant church’s registration...- it should be noted that the assessment of whether or not religious beliefs are identical is not a matter for the State authorities, but for the religious communities themselves....  Pluralism, which is the basic fabric of democracy, is incompatible with State action compelling a religious community to unite under a single leadership.... 

64.  The refusal to register the applicant church was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. It follows that there has been a breach of Article 9 of the Convention read in the light of Article 11.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

In a second case decided the same day, Independent Orthodox Church v. Bulgaria, (ECHR April 21, 2021), the same section of the European Court held that Bulgaria violated Article 9 of the Convention when it refused to recognize a new church because its name and beliefs were the same as those of the existing Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Court commented:

[T]he State does not need to ensure that religious communities remain under a unified leadership.... Even if the creation of the applicant church was ... prompted by a division within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, this fact does not alter that.... Nor does the fact that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s unity is considered of the utmost importance for its adherents and for Bulgarian society in general.

British Court Says Removal of Franklin Graham Bus Ads Violated Religion and Speech Rights

In Lancaster Festival of Hope With Franklin Graham v. Blackpool Borough Council, (Manchester Cty. Ct., April 1, 2021), a British trial court held that the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights were violated when banner ads for the Lancaster Festival of Hope were removed from public buses. According to the court:

Upon the Defendants receiving complaints from members of the public about the advertisements, the advertisements were removed from the buses. The complaints related to Franklin Graham and his association with the Festival, and predominantly referred to his views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage as being offensive.

In finding a violation of the Equality Act, the court said in part:

The complaints arose from the objections of members of the public to the religious beliefs. The removal came about because of those complaints. I find it also came about because the Defendants allied themselves on the issue of the religious beliefs with the complainants, and against the Claimant and others holding them. If there were any doubt about that it is made explicit by the content of the press statement issued on behalf of the Second Defendant when the advertisements were removed....

Finding a violation of the European Convention, and thus of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court said in part:

Yes, the Claimant was still able to advertise its event and yes, it was still a success. But “it turned out all right in the end” cannot be an answer to the question of whether the interference with a fundamental right to freedom of expression can be justified. The Defendants had a wholesale disregard for the right to freedom of expression possessed by the Claimant. It gave a preference to the rights and opinions of one part of the community without having any regard for the rights of the Claimant or those who shared its religious beliefs. It made no effort to consider whether any less intrusive interference than removing the advertisements altogether would meet its legitimate aim.

Christianity Daily reports on the decision.

Scottish Court Invalidates COVID Regulations Closing Churches

In In the cause of Philip for Judicial Review of the closure of places of worship in Scotland, (Ct. Sess. O.H., March 24. 2021), Scotland's Outer House of the Court of Session held that Regulations closing places of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic violate petitioner's right to worship under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

[S]ince the Regulations do interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioners to worship, notwithstanding that they have as their primary purpose the protection of health and preservation of life, they will be beyond the constitutional competence of the respondents (at least insofar as the petitioners and the additional party are concerned) if that interference is not proportionate...

[W]ithout in any way questioning the science which underlay the respondents’ decision-making, I conclude that the respondents have failed to show that no less intrusive means than the Regulations were available to address their aim of reducing risk to a significant extent. Standing the advice they had at the time, they have not demonstrated why there was an unacceptable degree of risk by continuing to allow places of worship which employed effective mitigation measures and had good ventilation to admit a limited number of people for communal worship.... Even if I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, the respondents have in any event not demonstrated why it was necessary to ban private prayer, the reasons which were given for that recommendation being insufficient to withstand even the lowest degree of scrutiny.

Law & Religion UK and Christian Post report on the decision.

British Court Upholds Convictions of Stonehenge Protesters

In Halcrow v. Crown Prosecution Service, (EWHC, March 10, 2021), the England and Wales High Court held that the religious freedom rights of pagan and Druid protesters at Stonehenge were not infringed when they were convicted of violating restrictions on entry to the stone circle in violation of provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Stonehenge Regulations. The court said in part:

[T]he removal of restrictions on access to the stone circle because the appellants turned up and wanted access to the stone circle to protest and exercise religious freedoms, would not strike a fair balance between the important rights of the individual appellants and the general interest of the community to see Stonehenge preserved for present and future generations. This is because it would have meant in practice that access to the stone circle would have had to be lifted as and when any person chose to walk into the stone circle, so long as they were protesting or exercising religious rights. Such access would inevitably have an adverse effect on Stonehenge to the detriment of current and future generations. Therefore the interference on the specific occasions with the appellants' rights under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] was justifiable and proportionate.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court Says Greece Should Not Have Indicated Non-Christening On Birth Record

In Stavropoulos and others v. Greece, (ECHR, June 25, 2020), the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Greece violated the religious freedom rights of parents when when their child's first name was entered into the birth record with an abbreviation in brackets next to it indicating that the parents had not christened the child.  The court, finding a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, said in part:

[T]he Court shares the applicants’ view that the note “naming” next to the third applicant’s first name carries a connotation, namely that she was not christened and that her name was given by the civil act of naming. That conclusion is further reinforced by the section concerning christening that is included in the birth registration act which ... has been left blank. Such information appearing in a public document issued by the State constitutes an interference with the right of all of the applicants not to be obliged to manifest their beliefs, which is inherent in the notion of freedom of religion and conscience as protected by Article 9 of the Convention. That is because it implies that the first and second applicants, as the parents and legal guardians of the third applicant, chose not to have the third applicant christened.

The court awarded damages of €10,000, plus costs, to petitioners.

European Court Says Muslim Inmate's Religious Rights Were Infringed In Russian Prison

The European Court of Human Rights this week handed down an opinion in the case of a Muslim inmate in a Russian prison who claims that his religious rights were infringed in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights when he was reprimanded for praying in the middle of the night during Ramadan.  In Korostelev v. Russia, (ECHR, May 12, 2020), the court said in part:

Religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual thought and conscience..... However, ... freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom to manifest one’s belief.... The manifestation of religious belief may take the form of worship, teaching, practice and observance.... Since the manifestation by one person of his or her religious belief may have an impact on others, ... any limitation placed on a person’s freedom to manifest religion or belief must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate aims set out therein...

From the Government’s submission and the findings of the domestic authorities, it appears that the only reason for disciplining the applicant was the formal incompatibility of his actions with the prison schedule and the authorities’ attempt to ensure full and unconditional compliance with that schedule by every prisoner.

... Although the Court recognises the importance of prison discipline, it cannot accept such a formalistic approach, which palpably disregarded the applicant’s individual situation and did not take into account the requirement of striking a fair balance between the competing private and public interests.

The court in a chamber judgment awarded plaintiff 2600 Euros in damages and another 2000 Euros for costs and expenses. Law & Religion UK reports further on the case.

European Court Finds That Azerbaijan Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

On February 20, 2020, the European Court of Human Right issued two chamber judgments finding violation of religious freedom rights by Azerbaijan. In Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no. 58717/10), the court held that the detention of several Jehovah’s Witnesses for door to-door preaching and distribution of literature violated their rights to freedom of religion (Art. 9) and liberty of person (Art. 5) under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Azerbaijan (no. 52884/09), the Court concluded that Azerbaijan's ban on the importation of specified religious books violated Jehovah's Witnesses freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 10) considered in connection with their right to freedom of religion (Art. 9), saying in part:

Cases which involve prior restraint call for special scrutiny by the Court.

Azerbaijan had argued that the three titles in question contained disparaging remarks about the Christian and Jewish communities, contending:

[T]he books in question implied religious superiority and incited religious discord and could therefore damage the peaceful coexistence of several religious communities in a multireligious society...

The court concluded however that Azerbaijani courts "did not carry out careful balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in its case-law and did not provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference."

European Court Criticizes Greece's Procedure For Exemptions From Compulsory Religion Courses

In Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece, (ECHR, Oct. 31, 2019), the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgment held that Greece's system of exemptions of children from compulsory religious education classes in public schools violates freedom of education provisions and freedom of thought conscience and religion protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol Number 1 to the Convention.  Children who are not Orthodox Christians may be excused from the course. The court said in part:

the current system of exemption of children from the religious education course is capable of placing an undue burden on parents with a risk of exposure of sensitive aspects of their private life and that the potential for conflict is likely to deter them from making such a request, especially if they live in a small and religiously compact society, as is the case with the islands of Sifnos and Milos, where the risk of stigmatisation is much higher than in big cities. The applicant parents asserted that they were actually deterred from making such a request not only for fear of revealing that they were not Orthodox Christians in an environment in which the great majority of the population owe allegiance to one particular religion..., but also because, as they pointed out, there was no other course offered to exempted students and they were made to lose school hours just for their declared beliefs.

The Court also issued a Press Release summarizing the decision.

Northern Ireland's Abortion Restrictions Violate European Human Rights Convention

Yesterday, the High Court in Northern Ireland held that Northern Ireland's abortion law is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights insofar as it bars abortions in cases of fatal fetal abnormality. As explained in a Summary of Judgment issued by the court:

In June 2018, the UK Supreme Court ... dismissed an appeal by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission... over the legality of the abortion laws in Northern Ireland. A termination is only permitted if a woman’s life is at risk or if there is a risk of permanent and serious damage to her mental or physical health.... The majority of the UKSC held that the abortion law in Northern Ireland was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] in cases of FFA, rape and incest in that it denied women in these situations a lawful termination of their pregnancies for those who wish for it but dismissed the appeal, however, on the procedural issue that the NIHRC did not have the standing to bring the appeal....

Mrs Justice Keegan said she intended to follow the ruling of the UKSC that the law in Northern Ireland is incompatible with human rights in cases of FFA. She declined to follow a course which involved her effectively reopening the arguments already made and decided in relation to Article 8 incompatibility by the UKSC. The judge commented that the decision on substantive compatibility issues was intended by the UKSC to have persuasive force and that any matters of contention in respect of that decision should be corrected by the UKSC itself or by the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”).

A full text of the decision is not yet posted online. The Guardian reports on the decision.

European Court:Says Greece Should Not Have Applied Sharia Law In Will Contest

In Molla Sali v. Greece, (ECHR, Dec. 19, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Grand Chamber judgment held that Greece had violated Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which bans discrimination on the basis of religion when it insisted that Sharia law be applied to a wife's inheritance rights. As summarized in part by a press release issued by the Court:

On the death of her husband, Ms Molla Sali inherited her husband’s whole estate under a will drawn up by her husband before a notary. Subsequently, the deceased’s two sisters challenged the validity of the will, arguing that their brother had belonged to the Thrace Muslim community and that any question relating to inheritance in that community was subject to Islamic law and the jurisdiction of the “mufti” and not to the provisions of the Greek Civil Code. They relied, in particular, on the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which provided for the application of Muslim customs and Islamic religious law to Greek nationals of Muslim faith....

Owing to the application of Muslim inheritance law to her husband’s estate – which law in Greece applied specifically to Greeks of Muslim faith – Ms Molla Sali had been deprived of the benefit of the will drawn up in accordance with the Civil Code by her husband, and had therefore been deprived of three-quarters of the inheritance. The fact is that if her husband, the testator, had not been of Muslim faith, Ms Molla Sali would have inherited the whole estate. As the beneficiary of a will drawn up under the Civil Code by a testator of Muslim faith, Ms Molla Sali had therefore been in a situation comparable to that of a beneficiary of a will established under the Civil Code by a testator who was not of Muslim faith, but she had been treated differently on the grounds of the testator’s religion.

European Court Finds Russia's Ban On Public LGBT Events A Convention Violation

In Alekseyev v. Russia, (ECHR, Nov. 27, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgment by a panel of 7 judges held that Russia violated the protections on freedom of assembly (Art. 11) and the prohibition against discrimination (Art. 14) in the European Convention on Human Rights when it banned the holding of public LGBT events. It also found a violation of Art. 13's guarantee of a remedy in national courts for Convention violations. The Court emphasized that it had rendered a similar opinion in a 2010 case against Russia.  Judge Keller dissenting in part argued that damages should have been awarded in the case, rather than just entering a finding of violations of the Convention.  AP reports on the decision.

European Court of Human Rights OKs Injunctions Against Anti-Abortion Activist

In four related Chamber Judgments issued on Sept. 20, the European Court of Human rights upheld injunctions and the award of damages in the cases that doctors brought against an anti-abortion activist for calling doctors who performed abortions aggravated murderers and comparing abortion to the Holocaust. The court issued a press release summarizing the holdings in Annen v. Germany (No. 2 to 5):

The cases concerned a series of complaints by an anti-abortion activist, Klaus Günter Annen, over civil court injunctions on various actions he had taken as part of an anti-abortion campaign. The plaintiffs in the domestic proceedings were four doctors who performed abortions.

The Court held in particular that the injunctions had interfered with Mr Annen’s freedom of expression, but had been necessary in a democratic society. When examining whether there had been a need for such interferences in the interests of the “protection of the reputation or rights of others”, namely of the doctors, the Court’s role was only to ascertain whether the domestic courts had struck a fair balance when protecting the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights].

The press release contains links to the full text of each of the four decisions. [Thanks to Paul deMello Jr. for the lead.]

European Human Rights Court Can Now Issue Advisory Opinions

The European Court of Human Rights announced last week that Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (full text) has come into force after France became the tenth nation to ratify it. The Protocol allows courts in each European nation to request advisory opinions on the interpretation or application of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Requests for advisory opinions are limited to cases pending before the national court when the request is made.