European Court Says Greece Wrongly Refused To Recognize Jewish Community's Title To Property

In Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece, (ECHR, May 6, 2025), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Greece violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights that provides: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions...." At issue was the right of the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki to a 7400 square meter plot of land that the Community thought it had owned since 1934 but which Greece contended was subject to a 1950 law regarding property that had belonged to nationals of World War II enemies. The courts of Greece held that the Community should have brought an action to confirm its title and that the time to do that had long ago expired. The European Court rejected that contention saying that it was not reasonable to expect the Community to realize that it should have filed such an action. The European Court said in part:

... [I]n order for the legislation concerning the transfer of enemy property to have applied to a particular property, there were two fundamental conditions that had had to be met – one being that the property belonged to Italy or an Italian citizen on 22 October 1947 - 1947 – or to Germany or to a German citizen on 24 January 1946.... However, by the Court of Cassation’s own acknowledgement, that condition had not been met in the present case, given that the applicant community had been the owner of the plot since 1934.... No explanation as to why the circumstances of the instant case had warranted a different conclusion was given by the Court of Cassation.... The Court reiterates that where such manifestly conflicting decisions interfere with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and when no reasonable explanation is given for such divergence, such interferences cannot be considered lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because they lead to inconsistent case-law that lacks the required precision to enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions....

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court Says Spain Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witness in Authorizing Blood Transfusion

In Case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain, (ECHR, Sept. 17, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated by Spanish courts when they authorized a blood transfusion for a critically ill woman who, because of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused all blood transfusions. The court said in part:

181.  The Court fully appreciates that the actions taken in relation to the applicant on the day in question by the staff of both hospitals were motivated by the overriding concern to ensure the effective treatment of a patient who was under their care, in keeping with the most fundamental norm of the medical profession. It does not question their assessments regarding the severity of the applicant’s condition at the time, the urgency of the need to treat her, the medical options available in the circumstances, or that the applicant’s life was saved that day.

182.  However, the authorisation by the duty judge to proceed with whatever treatment was considered necessary resulted from a decision-making process that was affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of the applicant’s wishes, which had been recorded in various forms and at various times in writing. Since neither the applicant nor anyone connected with her was aware of the decision taken by the duty judge, it was not possible, even in theory, to make good that omission. Neither this issue, nor the issue of her capacity to take a decision, were addressed in an adequate manner in the subsequent proceedings. In light of this, it cannot be said that the domestic system adequately responded to the applicant’s complaint that her wishes had been wrongly overruled....

183.  In the Court’s view, the shortcomings identified above ... indicate that the interference complained of was the result of a decision-making process which, as it operated in this case, did not afford sufficient respect for the applicant’s autonomy as protected by Article 8, which autonomy she wished to exercise in order to observe an important teaching of her religion.

Eight of the 17 judges dissented as to the damages awarded by the majority. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

European Court: Romania Violated European Convention When It Reversed Conviction of 2 Nazi War Criminals

In Zăicescu and Fălticineanu v. Romania, (ECHR, April 23, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Romania had violated the European Convention on Human Rights when, in the late 1990's, it reopened the conviction of two Nazi war criminals and acquitted them of war crimes.  As summarized in a press release issued by the Court:

The applicants stated that they felt humiliated and traumatised because of the revision of historically and judicially established facts that, in their opinion, had amounted to a denial of the ethnically motivated violence of which they had been victims during the Holocaust.

The Court held that that the findings of the Supreme Court of Justice – specifically that only German troops had carried out on the territory of Romania actions against Jews and that R.D. had only followed orders issued by a superior – in the acquittal decisions of 1998 and 1999 had been excuses or efforts to blur responsibility and put blame on another nation for the Holocaust contrary to well established historical facts – all elements of Holocaust denial and distortion.

States that had experienced Nazi horrors could be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. This obligation formed part of the case at issue, where alleged discriminatory acts had been performed by State authorities.  

As matters of public interest, the authorities should have publicised the retrial proceedings and their outcome. The Court found that, owing to that failure, the applicants had found out about them by accident, which could have caused them to feel vulnerable and humiliated. 

The Court was satisfied that the Government had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the revision of historical convictions for crimes connected with the Holocaust. The acquittals had therefore been “excessive” and “not necessary in a democratic society”, leading to a violation of Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 14.

In its opinion, the Court quoted findings of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania which concluded in part:

Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, Romania bears the responsibility for the greatest contribution to the extermination of the Jews, outside of Germany itself.

The Court's majority refused however to find violations of Article 3's prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment because these actions occurred before Romania became a party to the European Convention and indeed before the Convention came into existence. A partially dissenting opinion by two judges argued against this part of the majority's decision.

The two survivors who filed suit had not requested damages.  The Court said in part:

[The applicants] contended that the issue in this case was a matter of principle and that no financial compensation could correlate to the mental harm, humiliation and psychological suffering endured as result of the State’s actions. Under these circumstances, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum in respect of damage.

The Court did award costs and expenses.

European Court: Failure To Consider Antisemitic Nature of Threats Violated Woman's Rights Under European Convention

In Allouche v. France, (ECHR, April 11, 2024) (full text in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment awarded damages of 15,000 Euros plus costs and expenses to a Jewish woman for violation of her right to respect for her private life. As explained by the Court in an English language summary:

Criminal proceedings were conducted following a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning antisemitic insults and threats she had received by email from B....

The applicant’s complaint concerned the fact that the authorities, which had failed to take into account the antisemitic aspect of the offender’s remarks, had failed to provide her with effective protection against antisemitic acts of violence, threats and insults. Some of B.’s statements had been extremely violent, had contained direct threats and had been directed at the applicant as a member of the Jewish community.

The Court reiterated that the national authorities had a duty to implement an appropriate legal framework to protect against discriminatory acts and to take all reasonable steps to determine whether there had been any racist or, more broadly, discriminatory motive for the impugned acts.... Violent incidents with allegedly discriminatory motives, in particular racist motives, should not be treated on an equal footing with offences lacking such motives....

In the light of the above considerations, the domestic authorities had disregarded their positive obligations under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, which had consisted in providing the applicant with effective and adequate criminal-law protection against the statements made by the offender. The authorities’ failure to take into account the antisemitic component of the present case had undermined their ability to provide an appropriate response.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

European Court: Turkey Violated Rights of Conscientious Objector

In Kanatli v. Turkey, (ECHR, March 12, 2024) (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Turkey had violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it convicted a military reservist who had subsequently become a conscientious objector for refusing to serve a one-day reserve duty call-up. The reservist, who had become an activist on the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, was convicted of violating Turkey's Mobilization Act and fined the equivalent of 167 Euros. He refused to pay the fine and was therefore sentenced to ten days in prison. An English language press release from the Court summarizes its holding, saying in part:

The relevant national legislation – which provided for compulsory military service in the armed forces, including as a reservist – made no provision for potential conscientious objectors to perform an alternative form of service....

The Court had previously found that a system which provided for no alternative service or any effective and accessible procedure for the examination of a claim of conscientious objection could not be seen as having struck a fair balance between the general interest of society and that of conscientious objectors. No convincing arguments having been put forward by the Government, the Court saw no reason to depart from its case-law in the present case....

The Court held that Türkiye was to pay the applicant 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,363 in respect of costs and expenses.

European Court Says Ban on Halal and Kosher Slaughter Does Not Violate Human Rights Convention

 In Affaire Executife van de Moslims van Belgie et Autres c. Belgique, (ECHR, Feb. 13, 2024) [full opinion available only in French], the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Belgium had not violated Article 9 (freedom of religion) or Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights when two regions in the country eliminated the exemption permitting ritual slaughter of animals without stunning. The decrees had the effect of prohibiting Halal and kosher slaughter of animals in the two regions. An English language press release from the Court describes the Court's opinion, in part, as follows:

The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion and that this was prescribed by legislation, namely the Flemish and Walloon decrees. 

As to whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Court observed that this was the first time that it had had to rule on the question whether the protection of animal welfare could be linked to one of the aims referred to in Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 9 of the Convention did not contain an explicit reference to the protection of animal welfare in the exhaustive list of legitimate aims that might justify an interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion.

However, the Court considered that the protection of public morals, to which Article 9 of the Convention referred, could not be understood as being intended solely to protect human dignity in the sphere of inter-personal relations. The Convention was not indifferent to the living environment of individuals covered by its protection and in particular to animals, whose protection had already been considered by the Court. Accordingly, the Convention could not be interpreted as promoting the absolute upholding of the rights and freedoms it enshrined without regard to animal suffering. 

Emphasising that the concept of “morals” was inherently evolutive, the Court did not see any reason to contradict the CJEU and the Constitutional Court, which had both found that the protection of animal welfare was an ethical value to which contemporary democratic societies attached growing importance....

The Court noted that both decrees were based on a scientific consensus that prior stunning was the optimum means of reducing the animal’s suffering at the time of slaughter. It saw no serious reason to call this finding into question.

The Court further observed that the Flemish and Walloon legislatures had sought a proportionate alternative to the obligation of prior stunning, as the decrees provided that, if the animals were slaughtered according to special methods required by religious rites, the stunning process used would be reversible, without causing the animal’s death....

European Court: Azerbaijan's Ban on Foreign Educated Imams Violates European Convention

In Babayev v. Azerbaijan, (ECHR, Feb. 1, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) is violated by Azerbaijan's law prohibiting citizens of the country who obtained their religious education abroad from conducting Islamic religious rites and rituals in Azerbaijan. In awarding petitioner, who had been sentenced to three years in prison for violating the law, damages of 6000 Euros, plus costs and expenses, the court said in part:

75.... The Court notes that there is no indication whatsoever that the Islamic religious rites and rituals that the applicant conducted contained any expressions or constituted any actions, such as, for example, seeking to spread, incite or justify hatred, discrimination or intolerance, or otherwise undermine the ideals and values of a democratic society....

76.... The Court is aware of the fundamental importance of secularism in Azerbaijani statehood and the respondent State’s attachment to religious tolerance. However, it cannot accept the Government’s argument that the applicant’s criminal conviction was necessary in a democratic society on account of the State’s fight against religious extremism and its protection of democratic values....

78.... [I]t is apparent that in so far as the restrictions did not regulate the content of the religious expression or the manner of its delivery, they were not fit to protect society from religious extremism or any other forms of intolerance...

European Court Advisory Opinion: Security Clearance May Be Withdrawn for Supporter of Religion That Is Threat to the State

In a Grand Chamber advisory opinion, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Belgium many deny a person the right to work as a security guard because he belongs to a religious movement that poses a threat to the state.  In Requested by the Conseil d’État of Belgium, (ECHR, Dec. 14, 2023), the Belgian Ministry of Interior had withdrawn the identification card of a security guard who was a supporter of the scientific branch of Salafism. The Ministry gave the following justifications:

... [S]cientific Salafism represents a threat to our model of society and to our country. Any security guard or officer must display conduct that is respectful of the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens and must respect democratic values....

Even though you have stated that you reject any violence in the name of Islam, the State Security Service has nevertheless indicated that you are a supporter of an ideology which, in particular, questions the legitimacy of Belgian law, advocates community sectarianism, fosters a backward view of the role of women and takes positions which threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens by a reactionary vision seeking to rid Islam of all its non-Islamic evolutions and influences.

The Court in its Advisory Opinion concluded:

The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: (1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; (2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; (3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; (4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims that it pursues; and (5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective and surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards, such as to ensure compliance with the requirements listed above.

European Court Says Homophobic Posting Was Not Protected by Human Rights Convention

 In Lenis v. Greece, (ECHR, Aug. 31, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible an application filed by a former Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church who contended that his Freedom of Expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed when he was convicted by Greek courts of public incitement to violence or hatred against people because of their sexual orientation.  The European Court pointed out that:

Speech that is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention is not protected by Article 10 by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention.... The decisive points when assessing whether statements, verbal or non-verbal, are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17 are whether the statements are directed against the Convention’s underlying values.... 

At issue was a homophobic article that the Metropolitan posted on his personal blog as Parliament was about to debate civil unions for same-sex couples. He titled the article "The Scum of Society Have Reared Their Heads! Let's Be Honest! Spit on Them". The Court said in part:

54.  ... [C]riticism of certain lifestyles on moral or religious grounds is not in itself exempt from protection under Article 10 of the Convention. However, when the impugned remarks go as far as denying LGBTI people their human nature, as in the present case, and are coupled with incitement to violence, then engagement of Article 17 of the Convention should be considered.

55.  ... [T]aking account firstly of the nature of the disputed article, which included incitement to violence and dehumanising hate speech ...; secondly, of the applicant’s position as a senior official of the Church who could influence many people; thirdly, of the fact that the views expressed in the article were disseminated to a wide audience through the Internet; and, fourthly, of the fact that they related directly to an issue which is of high importance in modern European society – protection of people’s dignity and human value irrespective of their sexual orientation – the applicant’s complaint does not, in the light of Article 17 of the Convention, attract the protection afforded by Article 10.

Bulgaria Violates European Convention by Failing to Recognize Same-Sex Married Couple

In Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Sept 5, 2023) (full text of decision in French) (Court's English Summary of decision), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Respect for private and family life) by failing to have a procedure for recognizing or registering a same-sex marriage entered in another country. According to the English language summary of the decision, the Court said in part:

... [I]n the absence of official recognition, same-sex couples were nothing more than de facto unions for the purposes of national law, even where a marriage had been validly contracted abroad. The partners were unable to regulate fundamental aspects of life as a couple such as those concerning property, family matters and inheritance, except as private individuals entering into contracts under the ordinary law, where possible, rather than as an officially recognised couple. They were not able to rely on the existence of their relationship in dealings with the judicial or administrative authorities or with third parties. Even assuming that national law had allowed the applicants to apply to the domestic courts for protection of their basic needs as a couple, the necessity of taking such a step would have constituted in itself a hindrance to respect for their private and family life.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

European Court: Ukraine Violates Human Rights Convention by Denying Legal Recognition to Same-Sex Couples

In Maymulakhin & Markiv v. Ukraine, (ECHR, June 1, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Ukraine violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by denying any form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

While the Court has to date not interpreted Article 8 of the Convention as imposing a positive obligation on the States Parties to make marriage available to same-sex couples, it has confirmed that in accordance with their positive obligations under that provision, the member States are required to provide a legal framework allowing same‑sex couples to be granted adequate recognition and protection of their relationship.... The Court has also held that Contracting States enjoy a more extensive margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of the legal regime to be made available to same sex couples....

The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the two petitioners 5032 Euros each as damages and to pay 4000 Euros for costs and attorney's fees.

The Court also issued a press release (PDF download link) summarizing its decision.

European Court Upholds Politician's Conviction for Failing to Remove Third Party Hate Speech from His Facebook Page

In Sanchez v. France, (ECHR, May 15, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights by a vote of 13-4 in a Grand Chamber judgment upheld France's conviction of a candidate for election to Parliament who was convicted of inciting violence against Muslims when he failed to promptly remove anti-Muslim postings by third parties placed on his Facebook page. The authors of the comments were convicted as accomplices. The majority concluded that the conviction did not violate Article 10, §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights since that section permits an interference with free expression when "necessary in a democratic society."  The majority said in part:

148.  While political speech calls for an elevated level of protection, the freedom of political debate is not absolute in nature....

149.  Since tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society, it follows that, in principle, it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to penalise or even prevent all forms of expression that propagate, encourage, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance (including religious intolerance), provided that any “formalities”, “conditions”, “restrictions” or “penalties” imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.... 

176.  ... [I]n an election context, the impact of racist and xenophobic discourse becomes greater and more harmful.... That is particularly true in the present circumstances where the political and social climate was troubled, especially at the local level with “clear tensions within the population, which were evident in particular from the comments at issue, but also between the protagonists”.... 

209.  ... [T]he Court finds that the decisions of the domestic courts were based on relevant and sufficient reasons, both as to the liability attributed to the applicant, in his capacity as a politician, for the unlawful comments posted in the run-up to an election on his Facebook “wall” by third parties, who themselves were identified and prosecuted as accomplices, and as to his criminal conviction. The impugned interference can therefore be considered to have been “necessary in a democratic society”.

The Court also posted a Legal Summary of the decision.

European Court: Finland May Require Jehovah's Witnesses to Obtain Consent Before Taking Notes on Those They Visit

In Jehovah's Witnesses v. Finland, (ECHR, May 9, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights held that Finland's data collection regulations did not infringe the religious freedom protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses who proselytized door-to-door.  At issue was notes taken by Jehovah's Witnesses in the course of their door-to-door preaching identifying those who did not wish to be visited again, and those who are deaf or spoke a foreign language so Witnesses who knew sign language or the relevant foreign language could visit in the future. Finland's Data Protection Ombudsman had held that this personal data could not be collected without the explicit consent of the person in question. Upholding that determination, the court said in part:

The relevant order had been based on the Personal Data Act in force at the time of the proceedings. That law was formulated with sufficient precision and aimed to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The Supreme Administrative Court had taken into account the fact that individuals whose personal data had been collected were entitled to trust that their data were not collected without their knowledge and consent. They also had a legitimate expectation, guaranteed by law, that they would have access to the data and, if necessary, the right to require that the data be corrected or deleted. Ensuring the rights of data subjects therefore inspired confidence rather than distrust in the applicant community’s activities. The consent requirement and the fact that it did not interfere with the core areas of the applicant community’s freedom of religion or freedom of expression had thus been proportionate.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

European Court Says Russian Regulation of Proselytizing Violated Human Rights Convention

In Ossewaarde v. Russia, (ECHR, March 7, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights held that legal restrictions imposed by Russia in 2016 on religious proselytizing violated the rights of a Baptist pastor who was a U.S. national living in Russia.  The court found violations of Articles 9 (freedom religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The court said in part:

By requiring prior authorisation from a duly constituted religious association and excluding private homes from the list of places where the right to impart information about religion may be exercised, the new regulation has left no room for people in the applicant’s situation who were engaged in individual evangelism. The requirement of prior authorisation also eliminated the possibility of spontaneous religious discussion among members and non-members of one’s religion and burdened religious expression with restrictions greater than those applicable to other types of expression.

...  [S]o long as the new restrictions did not regulate the content of the religious expression or the manner of its delivery, they were not fit to protect society from “hate speech” or to shield vulnerable persons from improper methods of proselytism which ... could have been legitimate aims for the regulation of missionary activities.... [T]he Court finds that the need for such new restrictions, in respect of which the applicant was sanctioned for non-compliance, has not been convincingly established. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of religion on account of his missionary activities has not been shown to pursue any “pressing social need”....

While the application of the additional penalty of expulsion exclusively to non-nationals may be objectively justified by the fact that it cannot be applied to nationals, the Court finds no justification for the considerably higher minimum fines applicable to non‑nationals in respect of the same offence. The difference in treatment also appears hard to reconcile with the provisions of Russia’s Religions Act which posits that non-nationals lawfully present in Russia may exercise the right to freedom of religion on the same conditions as Russian nationals.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of Same Sex Couples Who Were Denied Marriage Registration

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, Jan. 17, 2023), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated the rights of three same-sex couples when it refused to permit them to marry. The court said in part:

 206.  The Government argued, firstly, that it was necessary to preserve the traditional institutions of marriage and the family, these being fundamental values of Russian society that were protected by the Constitution.... 

209.  Given that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, the State, in its choice of means designed to protect the family and secure respect for family life as required by Article 8, must necessarily take into account developments in society and changes in the perception of social and civil-status issues and relationships, including the fact that there is not just one way or one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life....

212.  In the present case, there is no basis for considering that affording legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples in a stable and committed relationship could in itself harm families constituted in the traditional way or compromise their future or integrity..... Indeed, the recognition of same-sex couples does not in any way prevent different-sex couples from marrying or founding a family corresponding to their conception of that term. More broadly, securing rights to same-sex couples does not in itself entail weakening the rights secured to other people or other couples. The Government have been unable to prove the contrary.

213.  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the protection of the traditional family cannot justify the absence of any form of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples in the present case....

219.  ... [T]he allegedly negative, or even hostile, attitude on the part of the heterosexual majority in Russia cannot be set against the applicants’ interest in having their respective relationships adequately recognised and protected by law....

Law & Religion UK reports in greater detail on the decision.

European Court Again Holds That Flying Spaghetti Monster Church Is Not a Protected "Religion"

In two recent Chamber Judgments, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed its prior holding in a 2021 case that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose adherents are also known as Pastafarians, does not qualify as a "religion" or "belief" protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Sager v. Austria, (ECHR, Dec. 15, 2022), Austria's Office for Religious Affairs refused to recognize the Church as a religious community. The European Court rejected petitioner's challenge to that decision, saying in part:

[B]y holding that Pastafarianism perceived itself as an ironical and critical movement with educational, scientific and political aims, and lacked religious rites, duties and an active following in Austria, the Office for Religious Affairs and the Federal Administrative Court duly applied the above‑mentioned standards requiring a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

In ALM v. Austria, (ECHR, Dec. 15, 2022), Austrian authorities refused to issue petitioner an identity card with a photograph showing him wearing a crown made of pasta.  Again, the European Court rejected petitioner's challenge to that decision. Law & Religion UK reports on the decisions.

European Court Upholds France's Conviction of Journalist for Inciting Anti-Muslim Hatred

In Zemmour v. France, (EDHR, Dec. 20, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights upheld France's conviction of a journalist for inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the French Muslim community through anti-Muslim remarks he made on a 2016 television talk show.  According to the Court's English language press release summarizing the decision, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of expression.  The press release says in part:

The Court was of the opinion that his remarks had not been confined to criticism of Islam but had, in view of the context of terrorist violence in which they had occurred, been made with discriminatory intent such as to call on viewers to reject and exclude the Muslim community. The Court concluded that the grounds on which the domestic courts had convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine, the amount of which was not excessive, had been sufficient and relevant. In conclusion the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of others which had been at stake in the case, and therefore there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

European Court: Bulgaria Violated Rights of Evangelical Churches by Warnings Circulated to Schools

In Tonchev v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Dec. 13, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that municipal officials in Bulgaria violated Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights when they circulated materials to schools containing hostile information about Christian evangelical churches.  According to the English language press release from the Court on the case:

The Court pointed out that Article 9 of the Convention did not prohibit the public authorities from making critical statements about representatives or members of religious communities. However, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such statements had to be supported by evidence of specific acts liable to pose a threat to public order or to the interests of others. They also had to avoid casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs in question and must remain proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, it did not appear from the circular letter and the information notice distributed to schools that the authors had been mindful of the authorities’ duty of neutrality and impartiality. On the contrary, these documents contained unqualified negative judgments, in particular those portraying the Evangelical Churches as “dangerous sects” which “contravene[d] Bulgarian legislation, citizens’ rights and public order” and “create[d] divisions and opposition within the Bulgarian nation on religious grounds”. They also made unfounded references to certain proven cases of improper proselytising as reflecting the usual practice of those Churches. Lastly, they drew comparisons with the dominant Orthodox religion and made remarks linking, in particular, the lack of veneration of “national saints” with the division of the Bulgarian nation. Those remarks could be interpreted as casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs and practices of the Churches concerned.

While the Court regarded as justifiable the intention to warn pupils against possible abusive practices by certain religious groups by informing them about such practices, it was not persuaded that the use of language such as that referred to in the preceding paragraph was necessary for that purpose.

European Court: Human Rights Convention Violated When French Authorities Failed to Assure Respect for Foster Child's Birth Religion

In Loste v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 3, 2022) (full text in French) (Press Release summary in English), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment held that France's child welfare service violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to assure that a Jehovah's Witness foster family was respecting the Muslim beliefs of its foster child's birth family. The Court's decision also dealt with a separate issue--French authorities' failure to protect the foster child from sexual abuse by her foster father. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court: Suspended Prison Sentence For Protest In Catholic Church Violated Rights Of Abortion Rights Activist

In Bourton v. France, (ECHR, Oct. 13, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that a French court's imposition of a suspended one-month prison sentence on a 39-year feminist activist charged with "sexual exposure" violated her rights of freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The French court had also ordered defendant to pay damages and costs totaling 3500 Euros.  According to the English language press release from the European Court:

On 20 December 2013 [Eloise Bouton] staged a protest in the church of La Madeleine in Paris, but not during mass, by standing in front of the high altar while exposing her breasts, revealing slogans daubed across her body, and pretending to carry out an abortion using raw beef liver as a prop. Her performance was brief and she left the church when so requested by the choirmaster. The protest received media coverage, about ten journalists having been present....

The purpose of the applicant’s mise en scène had been to convey, in a symbolic place of worship, a message relating to a public and societal debate on the positioning of the Catholic Church on a woman’s right to free disposal of her body, including the right to have an abortion.

In these circumstances, the [European] Court [of Human Rights] took the view that the applicant’s freedom of expression should have been afforded a sufficient level of protection since the content of her message related to a matter of public interest....

The Court reiterated that the imposition of a prison sentence for an offence in the area of political speech would be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence....

The Court found that the grounds given by the domestic courts had not been sufficient for it to consider that they had weighed up the interests at stake in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the criteria established in its case-law....