Showing posts with label European Court of Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Court of Human Rights. Show all posts

Friday, June 27, 2014

European Court Holds Russia Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

In Krupko v. Russia, (ECHR, June 26, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 5 (right to liberty and security) and Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) when in 2006 police disrupted a Jehovah's Witness religious meeting and arrested some of the participants. The court awarded 36,000 Euros as damages and costs. The court issued a press release on the case. RAPSI reports on the decision.

Friday, June 13, 2014

European Court Faults Russia For Dissolving Pentecostal Church

In Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, (ECHR 1st Section, June 12, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) interpreted in light of Art. 11 (freedom of assembly and association) when it ordered dissolution of a Pentecostal religious organization.  In a press release, the Court summarized the facts:
The applicant is a Russian religious organisation, the Biblical Centre of the Evangelical (Pentecostal) Christians of the Chuvash Republic. Belonging to the Pentecostal movement of the Christian faith, it was registered as a religious organisation in November 1991, founding a Biblical college and Sunday school in 1996. However, following inspections of the Biblical Centre in April and May 2007, the domestic courts ruled against the applicant organisation in two sets of administrative proceedings for allowing the Centre to conduct educational activities without authorisation and for violating sanitary rules and hygienic requirements. On that basis, the Supreme Court upheld the prosecuting authorities’ claim to dissolve the applicant organisation in August 2007 and, following the dismissal of the organisation’s appeal in October 2007, it was dissolved with immediate effect.
In its decision, the Court held:
the domestic authorities have not shown that the dissolution, which undermined the very substance of the applicant organisation’s rights to freedom of religion and association, was the only option for the fulfilment of the aims they pursued.
An ACLJ press release reports on the decision.

European Court Upholds Spain's Dismissal of Priest As Public School Teacher

In Martinez v. Spain, (ECHR, June 12, 2014), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in a 9-8 decision, held that there had not been a violation of a Catholic priest's rights under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when he was not renewed as teacher of Catholic religion and ethics in a State secondary school in Spain.  Art. 8 deals with respect for private and family life.

The priest, Fr. Jose Martinez, was ordained in 1961.  He applied for a dispensation from celibacy in 1984, but when he did not receive a response by the following year he married in a civil ceremony. He and his wife had 5 children.  Martinez taught in a state high school from 1991 until 1997 when the Vatican granted his dispensation from celibacy, but at the same time ruled that he could no longer teach religion in a state school unless the local bishop decided otherwise. The Vatican's ruling obligated his removal from his position in the state school pursuant to an agreement between Spain and the Holy See. This ruling followed publication of an article in a Spanish newspaper about the "Movement for Optional Celibacy of Priests" in which Martinez was an active member. The article, illustrated with a picture of Martinez and his family, quoted members' views on abortion, divorce, sexuality and contraception which were contrary to those of the Church.

The court said in part:
the applicant ... must have been aware, in accepting the task of teaching Catholic religion, of the potential consequences of the heightened duty of loyalty vis-à-vis the Catholic Church by which he thus became bound, for the purpose, in particular, of preserving the credibility of his teaching....
Focusing on the Church's rights of autonomy, the court said:
the right of believers to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that they will be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State intervention. The autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 of the Convention affords.
Four separate dissenting opinions were also filed. The Court also issued a press release summarizing the 65 pages of decisions. The Becket Fund issued a press release on the decision applauding the vindication of church autonomy and criticizing the dissent by Judge Dedov that strongly takes issue with the Catholic Church's rules on celibacy for priests.

Sunday, June 08, 2014

European Court Says Turkey Mistreated Jehovah's Witness Conscientious Objectors

In Buldu and Others v. Turkey, (ECHR Second Section, June 3, 2014) (full text in French), the European Court of Human Rights held that Turkey violated the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) and Art. 9 (freedom of thought conscience and religion) in its prosecution and conviction of four Jehovah's Witnesses who were conscientious objectors to military service. It also held that Turkey violated Art. 6, Sec. 1 (fair trial) as to one of the petitioners who complained that he had had to appear as a civilian before a court made up exclusively of military personnel. The court (in an appealable Chamber Judgment) awarded substantial amounts in damages to each petitioner. More information on the decision is available in the Court's English language press release, and from Law & Religion UK blog.

Tuesday, March 04, 2014

European Court of Human Rights Upholds British Refusal To Treat Mormon Temple As Place of Public Worship For Tax Purposes

In Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, March 4, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section, held that Britain did not violate the non-discrimination provisions of Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the freedom of conscience and religion provisions of Art. 9, when it held that a Mormon Temple was subject to a reduced tax rate as a place used for charitable purposes, but was not entitled to the full exemption from property taxes that is available to places of "public religious worship."  Entry to the Temple is limited to devout Church members who hold a "recommend" from the bishop. The Church's stake center, with its chapel, hall and ancillary rooms, on the same site had been granted the full exemption since entry to them was not limited. In finding no discrimination, the Court said in part:
To establish differential treatment, the applicant Church relied on the argument that, because of the nature of its doctrine, which holds that access to the temple should be restricted to its most devout members who hold a current “recommend”, the law ... provided a lower fiscal advantage to the Mormon Church than to such other faiths as to not restrict access to any of their places of worship.... [I]t is open to doubt whether the refusal to accord an exemption in respect of the applicant Church’s temple in Preston gave rise to any difference of treatment of comparable groups, given that the tax law in question applied in the same way to, and produced the same result in relation to, all religious organisations, including the Church of England in respect of its private chapels. Neither is the Court convinced that the applicant Church was in a significantly different position from other churches ... so as to call for differential treatment ..., since other faiths likewise do not allow access of the public to certain of their places of worship for doctrinal reasons.
Law & Religion UK reports on the decision. [Thanks To Paul DeMello, Jr. for the lead.]

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Greek Jews Sue Germany In European Court For Return of Ransom Paid To Nazis

AP reports that the Jewish community of Thessaloniki, Greece last week filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in a suit against Germany seeking to recover the $69 million in ransom paid in 1942 to Nazi occupiers for the release of thousands of Jewish men aged 18-45 who were forced as slave laborers to work on construction projects across Greece. Soon after their release, the city's entire Jewish population was sent to German death camps anyway. Greece's Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit last year on jurisdictional grounds.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

European Human Rights Court Says Refusal of Vegetarian Diet To Buddhist Prisoner Violated His Religious Rights

In Vartic v. Romania, (ECHR, Dec.17, 2013),the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber judgment, held that a Buddhist prison inmate's rights of religion and conscience protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were infringed when Romanian officials refused to provide him with a vegetarian diet:
...[D]espite the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State, the Court finds that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the prison authorities and those of the applicant, namely the right to manifest his religion through observance of the rules of the Buddhist religion.
The court awarded petitioner damages of 3200 Euros. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

European Court Hears Arguments In French Burqa Ban Challenge

Yesterday, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in S.A.S. v. France, (Application no. 43835/11).  As described in a press release from the Court:
The case concerns the complaint of a French national, who is a practising Muslim, that she is no longer allowed to wear the full-face veil in public following the entry into force, in April 2011, of a law prohibiting concealment of one’s face in public places.
(See prior related posting.)