European Court Rejects Muslim Parents' Complaints About Mixed Swim Lessons In Schools

In Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Jan. 10. 2017) (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment rejected a challenge by Muslim parents to a Swiss educational requirement that their young daughters attend mixed swim lessons.  The Court's press release summarized the decision:

The Court ... observed that the authorities’ refusal to grant ... an exemption from swimming lessons had been an interference with the freedom of religion, that interference being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim (protection of foreign pupils from any form of social exclusion).

The Court emphasised, however, that school played a special role in the process of social integration, particularly where children of foreign origin were concerned. It observed that the children’s interest in a full education, facilitating their successful social integration according to local customs and mores, took precedence over the parents’ wish to have their daughters exempted from mixed swimming lessons and that the children’s interest in attending swimming lessons was not just to learn to swim, but above all to take part in that activity with all the other pupils, with no exception on account of the children’s origin or their parents’ religious or philosophical convictions.

The Court also noted that the authorities had offered the applicants very flexible arrangements ... such as allowing their daughters to wear a burkini.... The Court accordingly found that by giving precedence to the children’s obligation to follow the full school curriculum and their successful integration over the applicants’ private interest in obtaining an exemption from mixed swimming lessons for their daughters on religious grounds, the domestic authorities had not exceeded the considerable margin of appreciation afforded to them ... which concerned compulsory education.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

European Court Finds Lack of Fair Hearing For Church Over Expropriation

In Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania, (ECHR, Nov. 29, 2016), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that a Greek Catholic church had been denied a fair hearing in Romania on its claim for compensation for the expropriation by Romania's former Communist government of the church's property followed by its transfer to the Greek Orthodox Church. The court said in part:

The protection of minorities is almost always unpopular and the protection of religious minorities is even more so. Europe has a long history of religious majorities disregarding the rights of religious minorities. This is an area where present-day democratic standards oblige a majority to show restraint, for the sake of respecting minorities. Unfortunately this case shows that States are often reluctant to undo the injustice committed to religious minorities when the interest of the religious majority is at stake.

Law & Religion UK has an extensive discussion of the case.

European Court: Greece Violated Rights of Conscientious Objector

In Papavasilakis v. Greece, (ECHR, Sept. 15, 2016) [full text in French], the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment found that a Jehovah's Witness' freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) were infringed by procedures used in Greece to consider his application to perform alternative civilian service instead of military service. As summarized by the Court's English-language press release:

Domestic law provided that the Special Board, when it examined applications for exemption from military service for conscientious objectors, had to be composed of two university professors, one senior or other advisor at the State Legal Council and two high-ranking army officers. Accordingly, if at the time it interviewed Mr Papavasilakis the Special Board had sat with all of its members present, the majority would have been civilians. However, only the two officers and the chairman were present on that day. In the Court’s view Mr Papavasilakis could thus have legitimately feared that, not being a member of a religious community, he would not succeed in conveying his ideological beliefs to career officers with senior positions in the military hierarchy.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.

European Court Says Turkish Objector Not Covered By European Convention on Human Rights

In Enver Aydemir v. Turkey, (ECHR, June 7, 2016) (full text of opinion in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect a Turkish conscientious objector.  Enver Aydemir asserted that he objects to military service for the secular Republic of Turkey, but would serve under a system based on the Qur'an and subject to its rules. A press release by the Court summarized the Court's reasoning:

Mr Aydemir’s complaints did not involve a form of manifestation of a religion or belief through worship, teaching, practice or observance within the meaning of Article 9 § 1. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Mr Aydemir’s opposition to military service was not such as to entail the applicability of Article 9 of the Convention, and that the evidence before it did not suggest that his stated beliefs included a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms.

The Court did find, however, that Mr. Ayedmir was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR in the investigation of charges against him, charges brought against him and mistreatment of him during confinement. The Court awarded Ayedmir damages of 15000 Euros plus 3000 Euros for costs and expenses.

European Court Says Turkey Violated Rights of Alevi Community

In  İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey, (ECHR, April 26. 2016), the European Court of Human Rights in a Grand Chamber judgment held that Turkey violated Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to recognize and grant support to the Alevis (the country's second largest faith group) as a separate religious community. As described in the court's press release on its decision, the lawsuit by 203 Turkish nationals asked that

the Alevi community be provided with religious services in the form of a public service; that Alevi religious leaders be recognised as such and recruited as civil servants; that the cemevis (the places where Alevis practise their religious ceremony, the cem) be granted the status of places of worship; and that State subsidies be made available to their community. Their requests were refused on the grounds that the Alevi faith is regarded by the authorities as a religious movement within Islam, more akin to the “Sufi orders”.

The court found the Art. 9 violation by a vote of 12-5 and the Art. 14 violation by a vote of 15-1. According to AFP, there have been improvements in the Alevis position since the suit was first filed in 2010, with a Turkish court in August ruling that the government should cover all the expenses of Alevi places of worship. Daily Sabah says that last year Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said that Cemevis will be granted legal status. (See prior related posting.)

European Court Says Switzerland Need Not Recognize Underage Religious Marriage of Afghan Nationals

In Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Dec. 8, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Switzerland was not required for asylum purposes to recognize the religious marriage between first cousins, entered when the bride was only 14 years old.  The religious marriage between the two, who are Afghan nationals, would have been illegal in Afghanistan because a woman must be at least 15 years old to marry there.  The religious marriage was contracted in Iran where the couple was living illegally, but it was not registered with Iranian authorities. The couple subsequently applied for asylum in Switzerland which they had entered illegally from Italy. Refusing to recognize them as husband and wife, authorities removed the husband to Italy.  However he soon returned illegally to Switzerland where apparently then Switzerland decided to recognize the marriage once the woman turned 17. The European Court did not treat this as mooting the appeal to it of Switzerland's initial decision.

European Court Upholds Hungary's Refusal To Award Damages To Dismissed Pastor

Last week in a Chamber Judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held by a 4-3 vote that there had not been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Sec. 6(1), when Hungary refused to adjudicate a dispute between a pastor and his Hungarian Calvinist Church.  At issue were claims by a pastor who had been terminated by the Church for stating in a local newspaper that State subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a Calvinist boarding school.  In Nagy v. Hungary, (ECHR, Dec. 1, 2015), a majority of the court, with fragmented reasoning spanning two opinions, concluded that there had not been a denial of the right to a hearing in the civil courts, particularly when a claim could have been brought in ecclesiastical courts.  Three judges dissented, saying in part:

[I]t is more than doubtful that it would be possible at all to show that (and how) the settlement, by a State court, of the pecuniary dispute between the applicant and the Calvinist Church could pose a “real” and “substantial” risk to that church’s autonomy.

The Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. ADF issued a press release on the decision.

European Court Upholds French Hospital's Hijab Ban

The European Court of Human Rights yesterday, in a Chamber Judgment by a panel of 7 judges, upheld the decision of a French hospital to refuse to renew the employment contract of a Muslim social worker who insisted on wearing a headscarf (hijab). The full decision in Ebrahimian v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 26, 2015) is available in French (with a partial dissenting opinion in English). According to the Court's English press release on the decision:

[T]he Court found that the requirement of neutrality of public officials could be regarded as justified in principle: the State, as employer of the applicant in a public hospital, could consider it necessary that she refrain from expressing her religious beliefs in discharging her functions in order to guarantee equality of treatment of patients....  [T]he Court reiterated that while public officials enjoyed total freedom of conscience, they were prohibited from manifesting their religious beliefs in discharging their functions. Such a restriction derived from the principle of the secular nature of the State, and that of the neutrality of public services, principles in respect of which the Court had already approved a strict implementation where a founding principle of the State was involved.

The Court considered that the fact that the national courts had afforded greater weight to the principle of secularism-neutrality and the State’s interest than to Ms Ebrahimian’s interest in not having the expression of her religious beliefs restricted did not cause a problem with regard to the [European] Convention [on Human Rights].

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the ECHR Grand Chamber. The Scotsman reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

European Court Rejects Appeal of Conviction For Comedy Performance Promoting Holocaust Denial

The European Court of Human Rights yesterday held inadmissible (i.e. dismissed at a preliminary stage as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights) the appeal of a conviction by a French court of a comedian charged with publicly directing insults at a person or group of persons on account of their origin or of belonging, or not belonging, to a given ethnic community, nation, race or religion.  M'Bala v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 10, 2015) (full text of decision in French) (Press Release in English) involves a comedian who at the end of a show in Paris invited a well-known Holocaust denier onto stage to receive a "prize for unfrequentability and insolence." According to the Court's press release:

The prize, which took the form of a three-branched candlestick with an apple on each branch, was awarded to him by an actor wearing what was described as a “garment of light” – a pair of striped pyjamas with a stitched-on yellow star bearing the word “Jew” – who thus played the part of a Jewish deportee in a concentration camp....

In the Court’s view, this was not a performance which, even if satirical or provocative, fell within the protection of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on human rights, but was in reality, in the circumstances of the case, a demonstration of hatred and anti-Semitism and support for Holocaust denial. Disguised as an artistic production, it was in fact as dangerous as a head-on and sudden attack, and provided a platform for an ideology which ran counter to the values of the European Convention.

Times of Israel reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

European Court Reverses Genocide Conviction For Killing of Lithuanian Partisans

In Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania, (ECHR, Oct. 20, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a 9-8 decision by the Grand Chamber reversed a genocide conviction by the courts of Lithuania. As summarized by the Court's press release:

The case concerned the conviction in 2004 of Mr Vasiliauskas, an officer in the State security services of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic from 1952 to his retirement in 1975, for the genocide in 1953 of Lithuanian partisans who resisted Soviet rule after the Second World War....

The Court found in particular that it was clear that Mr Vasiliauskas’ conviction had been based upon legal provisions that had not been in force in 1953, and that such provisions had therefore been applied retroactively....

Although the offence of genocide had been clearly defined in the international law (notably, it had been codified in the 1948 Genocide Convention....), the Court took the view that his conviction could not have been foreseen under international law as it stood at the time of the killings of the partisans. Notably, international treaty law had not included a “political group” in the definition of genocide [it only included national, ethnic, racial or religious groups] and customary international law was not clear on the definition....

 Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

European Court Says Armenian Genocide Denial Protected By Freedom of Expression

In Case of Perincek v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Oct. 15, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Grand Chamber judgment, by a vote of 10-7, held that Switzerland violated Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) when it criminally convicted the head of the Turkish Workers Party of violating Swiss law when he, at three public events in Switzerland, denied the 1915 Armenian genocide.  Swiss courts found Doğu Perinçek guilty of violating Art. 261 of the Swiss Criminal Code which, among other things, criminalizes denying, trivializing or seeking justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity. The European Court, finding his conviction in violation of the Convention, said in part in its majority opinion:

Taking into account ... that the applicant’s statements bore on a matter of public interest and did not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance, that the context in which they were made was not marked by heightened tensions or special historical overtones in Switzerland, that the statements cannot be regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in Switzerland, that there is no international law obligation for Switzerland to criminalise such statements, that the Swiss courts appear to have censured the applicant for voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones in Switzerland, and that the interference took the serious form of a criminal conviction – the Court concludes that it was not necessary, in a democratic society, to subject the applicant to a criminal penalty in order to protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the present case.

European Court Says Christian Proselytizer's Rights Infringed By Broadcast Documentary

The European Court of Human Rights today in a Chamber Judgment in Bremner v. Turkey (ECHR, Oct. 13, 2015) (full text of decision in French) held that Dion Bremner, an Australian newspaper correspondent and Christian bookstore employee, had his rights violated by a Turkish television station which broadcast a documentary about his Christian proselytizing.  The producers of the broadcast alerted police and criminal charges of insulting God and Islam were brought against Bremner,  He was ultimately acquitted, Bremner then sued the television producer and presenter, and on appeal the European Court found he was entitled to damages.  As summarized by the European Court's press release on the decision, the Court:

held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the broadcasting of a television documentary in which the applicant, Mr, Bremner, who was shown promoting his evangelical Christian beliefs, was described as a “foreign pedlar of religion” engaged in covert activities in Turkey. The Court found in particular that the broadcasting of Mr Bremner’s image without blurring it could not be regarded as a contribution to any debate of general interest for society, regardless of the degree of public interest in the question of religious proselytising.

[Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

European Court Upholds Italy's Ban On Donation of IVF Embryos For Scientific Research

In Parrillo v. Italy, (ECHR, Aug. 27, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Grand Chamber judgment held 16-1 that Italy did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights when it banned donating for scientific research unimplanted embryos created in carrying out in vitro fertilization. The Court's accompanying press release summarizes the majority opinion:

For the first time, the Court was called upon to rule on the question whether the “right to respect for private life” could encompass the right to make use of embryos obtained from IVF for the purposes of donating them to scientific research. The “family life” aspect of Article 8 was not in issue here, since Ms Parrillo had chosen not to go ahead with a pregnancy with the embryos in question.

The Court, noting that the embryos obtained through IVF contained the genetic material of the person in question and accordingly represented a constituent part of his or her identity, concluded that Ms Parrillo’s ability to exercise a choice regarding the fate of her embryos concerned an intimate aspect of her personal life and accordingly related to her right to self-determination. The Court also took into account the importance attached by the domestic legal system to the freedom of choice of parents regarding the fate of embryos not destined for implantation. It therefore concluded that Article 8 was applicable in this case.....

The Court concluded that Italy had not overstepped the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by it in this case and that the ban in question had been “necessary in a democratic society”. In consequence, there had been no violation of Article 8.

Six separate partly or fully concurring and dissenting opinions were also filed. As reported by the Times of Malta, a partly dissenting opinion of 5 judges said in part:

 Unlike the majority, we do not consider that embryos can be reduced to constituent parts of anyone else’s identity—biological or otherwise. Whilst sharing the genetic make-up of its biological ‘parents’, an embryo is, at the same time, a separate and distinct entity albeit at the very earliest stages of human development.

European Court Holds Italy Gives Inadequate Protection To Same-Sex Couples

In a Chamber judgment in Oliari and Others v. Italy, (ECHR, July 21, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment awarded damages to three same-sex couples whose relationships were not adequately protected by Italian law.  While the award was unanimous, 3 concurring judges thought that the case could be decided on narrower grounds than did the 4-judge majority opinion.  The Court's press release describes the majority opinion in part as follows:

In previous cases, the Court had already found that the relationship of a cohabitating same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership fell within the notion of “family life” within the meaning of Article 8. It had also acknowledged that same-sex couples were in need of legal recognition and protection of their relationship....

The Court considered that the legal protection currently available in Italy to same-sex couples ... not only failed to provide for the core needs relevant to a couple in a stable committed relationship, but it was also not sufficiently reliable. Where registration of same-sex unions with the local authorities was possible – only in a small share of municipalities in Italy – this had merely symbolic value, as it did not confer any rights on same-sex couples. 

As regards the possibility, since December 2013, to enter into “cohabitation agreements”, such contracts were limited in scope. They failed to provide for some basic needs ... such as mutual material support, maintenance obligations and inheritance rights. The fact that cohabitation agreements were open to any set of people who were cohabiting, such as friends, flatmates or carers, showed that those agreements did not primarily aim to protect couples. Furthermore, such a contract required the couple concerned to be cohabiting, whereas the Court had already accepted that the existence of a stable union between partners was independent of cohabitation, given that many couples – whether married or in a registered partnership – experienced periods during which they conducted their relationship at long distance, for example for professional reasons.

Among the authorities cited by the majority was the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Obergefell decision. A Chamber judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. Frontiers Media reporting on the decision points out that Italy is the only major Western European country that does not provide either civil partnerships or same-sex marriage.

Russia's Constitutional Court: Russian Constitution Supreme Over European Human Rights Court Orders

RT reports on a decision handed down Tuesday by Russia's Constitutional Court holding that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not take precedence over the Russian Constitution. The decision came in a suit filed by a group of State Duma deputies, representing all four parliamentary caucuses. They challenged Russian laws that appear to require Russian courts and state agencies to carry out all orders of the European Court. In its decision, Russian court said in part:

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as legal positions of the ECHR that are based on it cannot cancel the priority of the Constitution. All decisions of the ECHR must be executed only with consideration to the Russian Constitution’s supremacy. As an exception, Russia can refuse to fulfill the imposed obligations when such a refusal is the only way to prevent the violation of the basic law.

It is expected that the decision may be used as a basis for challenging a European Court decision last year that ordered Russia to pay $2.5 billion in compensation for dissolving the Yukos Oil Co.

European Court Holds Hearing On Alevis' Complaint Against Turkey

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights yesterday held a hearing in Doğan and Others v. Turkey. (Webcast of full hearing with English simultaneous translation.) The case, brought by members of Turkey's Alevi community, involves claims of unequal treatment. Daily Sabah, reporting on the hearing, provides more background:

Applicants to the court requested the state provide the same status to cemevis as mosques and offer free public services. Several Alevi citizens had filed a lawsuit against the Prime Ministry in 2005 after their request for cemevis to be granted a new status was rejected. They then took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. They claim Turkish authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights concerning freedom of religion and thought and its ban on discrimination. An Alevi foundation had asked the government to implement regulations that would enable the bills of cemevis to be paid through a fund administered by the Presidency of Religious Affairs (DİB) that oversees the operation of mosques. Turkish courts had dismissed the foundation's application, basing their decision on the directorate's opinion that cemevis are not places of worship, but rather places of assembly in which spiritual ceremonies are held.

European Court Will Hear Case of Greek Muslim Widow Contesting Inheritance Rules

The Guardian yesterday reported on the first case to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights by a Greek Muslim woman who objects to Greece's application of Muslim personal law to her inheritance rights. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne between Greece and Turkey provides in part:

Article 42. The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities....

Article 45.  The rights conferred by the provisions of the present Section on the non-Moslem minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Moslem minority in her territory.

In 2013, Greece's Supreme Court, applying Article 45, held that matters of inheritance involving Greece's Muslim minority in Thrace must be resolved by muftis under sharia law.  Chatitze Molla Sali had by will been left all her husband's property. The husband's family contested the will, and a local mufti ruled that under sharia law, Muslims may not make wills. Instead property passes according to sharia rules.

European Court Says Bulgaria Violated Religious Rights of Muslims By Inadequate Response To Mosque Demonstration

The European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment yesterday held that Bulgarian authorites violated Muslim worshipers' right to practice their religion by the inadequate response to a demonstration in front of a mosque in the center of Sofia in 2011.  In the demonstration, leaders, members and supporters of the Bulgarian political party Ataka clashed with Muslim worshippers who had gathered for Friday prayer. In Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Feb. 24, 2015), the court said:

the outcome of the police’s response that day was that a large number of demonstrators were able to stand within touching distance of Banya Bashi mosque, to shout insults at praying worshippers, to engage in threating and provocative gestures and actions, and ultimately to gain access to the mosque. They enjoyed a virtually unfettered right to protest at the mosque that day, while the applicant and the other worshippers had their prayers entirely disrupted. It is plain, therefore, the police’s actions were confined simply to limiting the violence which broke out that day and that no proper consideration was given to how to strike the appropriate balance in ensuring respect for the effective exercise of the rights of the demonstrators and the applicant and the other worshippers.

Novinite reports on the decision.

European Court Says Bulgaria's Treatment of Word of Life Member Violated Religious Freedom

In Dimitrova v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Feb. 10, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that police action against a member of the Word of Life church violated her religious freedom rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. As recounted by the Court:

[A] complaint was submitted to the office of the Sofia City Public Prosecutor by the Directorate of Religious Denominations with the Council of Ministers, raising concerns about the activities of Word of Life in Bulgaria. ... [H]aving carried out an investigation, the prosecutor’s office adopted a decision stating that the “sect” had an influence on its followers which increased the risk of suicide and other psychological problems. Membership might lead to the severance of family and social ties with the wider community; followers were prohibited from watching television or reading literature other than the Bible or from undergoing any form of surgical intervention. In conclusion, the prosecutor decided to order the restriction of the right of members of the three organisations linked to Word of Life from assembling to promote their beliefs and from continuing to operate the Bible study centre....

[T]he applicant was summonsed to appear at the police station and ... a search of her flat was carried out, with a number of personal items seized, for the sole reason that she was known to be a member of the Word of Life community and had organised religious meetings at her home. Following the search, she was issued by the police with an order warning her not to host further meetings of Word of Life.... In these circumstances, since the police action was taken in direct response to the applicant’s manifestation of her religious belief and was intended to discourage her from worshipping and observing her religion further in community with others, the Court finds that it constituted a limitation on her freedom to manifest religion within the meaning of Article 9 § 2.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court Says Violence Against Jehovah's Witnesses Violates Human Rights Convention

In Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, (ECHR, Oct. 7, 2014), in a Chamber Judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held that numerous incidents of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses, even when carried out only by private individuals, violated Articles 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment) and 9 (freedom of conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the government's indifference and failure to protect those attacked.

... [T]he Court concludes that the relevant authorities were ineffective in preventing and stopping religiously motivated violence. Through the conduct of their agents, who either participated directly in the attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses or by their acquiescence and connivance into unlawful activities of private individuals, the Georgian authorities created a climate of impunity, which ultimately encouraged other attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the country. Furthermore, by an obvious unwillingness to ensure the prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of those responsible, the respondent Government failed to redress the violations, thereby neglecting the inherent preventive and deterrent effect in relation to future violations against Jehovah’s Witnesses.

... All of the above leads the Court to conclude that the Government simply declined to apply the law to protect the applicants. It therefore establishes that Article 3 of the Convention has been violated....

... [S]everal violent attacks took place with the direct participation of various public officials or with their connivance and acquiesence. As to the adequacy of the response, the applicants’ religious gatherings were violently disrupted on a large scale, their religious literature was confiscated and burnt, and their homes were ransacked. Having been treated in that way, the applicants were subsequently confronted with total indifference and a failure to act on the part of the authorities, who, on account of the applicants’ adherence to a religious community perceived as a threat to Christian Orthodoxy, took no action in respect of their complaints.... The authorities’ negligence opened the doors to widespread religious violence throughout Georgia against Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants were thus led to fear that they would be subjected to renewed violence at each fresh manifestation of their faith.

... [T]hrough their involvement, connivance or at least acquiescence, the relevant authorities failed in their duty to take the necessary measures to ensure that Jehovah’s Witnesses were able to exercise their right to freedom of religion.... The Court thus concludes that the State’s failures in connection with the circumstances concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the practice of their religion, seen as a whole, resulted in a violation of Article 9 of the Convention...

Art. 3 violations were found as to 32 applicants and Art. 9 violations were found as to 88.  The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision. Chamber Judgments are appealable to the Grand Chamber.