European Court Upholds Custody Order Barring Father From Involving Daughter In Jehovah's Witness Practices

In T.C. v. Italy, (ECHR, May 19, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a 5-2 Chamber Judgment upheld an Italian court's order in a custody case in which an 8-year old's mother who was a nominal Catholic, and who had the daughter enrolled in catechism classes, objected to the girl's father involving her in his Jehovah's Witness religion.  The court ordered the father to refrain from actively involving the daughter in his religion. The European Court rejected the father's argument that the Italian court's order disproportionately interfered with his right to family life and his freedom of religion.  The European Court said in part:

[I]n the present case the domestic courts ... had regard above all to the child’s interests. The child’s interests lay primarily in the need to maintain and promote her development in an open and peaceful environment, reconciling as far as possible the rights and convictions of each of her parents.

... [I]nvolving E.[the daughter]  in the applicant’s religious practices would destabilise her in that she would be induced to abandon her Roman Catholic religious habits.... 

... [T[he contested measure had little influence on the applicant’s religious practices and was in any event aimed solely at resolving the conflict arising from the opposition between the two parents’ educational concepts, with a view to safeguarding the child’s best interests.

The Court also published a summary of its decision. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court Says Switzerland Wrongly Denied Asylum To Pakistani Convert To Christianity

In M.A.M. v. Suisse, (ECHR, April 26, 2022) [decision in French], the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Pakistani asylee in Switzerland.  The Court's English language press release summarizes the case and its holding:

M.A.M. is a Pakistani national who had converted from Islam to Christianity while in Switzerland, where he had arrived in 2015 and where his asylum request had been rejected.

[T]he ... Court ... held, unanimously, that if the decision to expel the applicant to Pakistan were to be executed there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the absence of an assessment of the risk to which the applicant was exposed on account of the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of his own personal situation. The Court ruled that the assessment by the Swiss authorities of the risk facing the applicant on account of his conversion to Christianity if he were expelled to Pakistan had been insufficient to uphold the rejection of his asylum request....

[Thanks to @sacrareleges for the lead.]

European Court Says Jehovah's Witnesses Were Wrongly Denied Tax Exemption

In Affaire Assemblée chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah d’Anderlecht et autres c. Belgique, (ECHR, April 5, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation in Belgium that was denied a property tax exemption for property they used for religious worship. The regional tax law gave exemptions only to "recognized religions".  Jehovah's Witnesses were not recognized. According to the Court's press release:

The Court held that since the tax exemption in question was contingent on prior recognition, governed by rules that did not afford sufficient safeguards against discrimination, the difference in treatment to which the applicant congregations had been subjected had no reasonable and objective justification. It noted, among other points, that recognition was only possible on the initiative of the Minister of Justice and depended thereafter on the purely discretionary decision of the legislature. A system of this kind entailed an inherent risk of arbitrariness, and religious communities could not reasonably be expected, in order to claim entitlement to the tax exemption in issue, to submit to a process that was not based on minimum guarantees of fairness and did not guarantee an objective assessment of their claims.

European Court Dismisses Challenge To Baker's Refusal To Supply Cake With Pro-Gay Marriage Inscription

In a much-awaited decision, the European Court of Human Rights managed to avoid dealing directly with the central question in a case pitting LGBTQ rights against religious freedom rights of owners of commercial establishments. In Lee v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, Jan. 6, 2022), Gareth Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from a bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage."  He planned to take it to a private event being held to mark the end of Northern Ireland Anti-Homophobia and Transphobia Week and being held to gather political support for pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The bakery, Ashers Baking Company, rejected the order because the company owners' Christian religious beliefs were opposed to same-sex marriage.

Lee filed suit in a county court in Northern Ireland claiming a violation of Northern Ireland's Equality Act and its Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which, among other things, bar sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services and discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion. The case wound its way up to the U.K.'s Supreme Court which concluded that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because the bakery would have refused to supply the cake with that inscription to anyone. It also rejected the political opinion discrimination claim.

Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In yesterday's decision, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee "did not invoke his Convention rights expressly at any point in the domestic proceedings.  Instead he formulated his claim by reference to [Northern Ireland's domestic law]." By failing to assert his rights under the European Convention in the courts of Northern Ireland, Lee failed to exhaust his domestic remedies.  The court said in part:

75.  ... As the Supreme Court of the United States pointed out in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.... This is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where there is a large and strong faith community, where the LGBTIQ community has endured a history of considerable discrimination and intimidation, and where conflict between the rights of these two communities has long been a feature of public debate....

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for alerting me to the decision.]

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 Dismisses Challenges To Irish Constitution's Religious Oaths

In Shortall v. Ireland, (ECHR, Nov. 18, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as inadmissible a suit filed by several politicians in Ireland complaining that the Irish Constitution requires the President and members of the Council of State to take oaths containing religious language, without a secular alternative.  The court concluded that none of the litigants were directly affected by the challenged provisions:

[N]one of the applicants have so far been invited to serve on the Council of State, and none claimed that such an appointment was under consideration....

[T]he applicants have not provided any evidence – or even sought to argue – that they could secure the nomination required to stand for election as President.... [T]he applicants ... are seeking to have their victim status accepted, not in the context of a clear, immediate and compelling factual matrix which would allow them to adduce reasonable and convincing evidence that they are at a real risk of being adversely affected by the impugned measure, but rather as a hypothetical outcome, without addressing the very many challenges they would potentially have to overcome to secure that office.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

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.

European Court Upholds Vatican's Immunity From Suit In Member-State Courts

In J.C. and Others v. Belgium, (ECHR, Oct. 12, 2021) (full text in French) (press release in English) the European Court of Human Rights in a 6-1 Chamber judgment held that Belgian courts acted properly in recognizing immunity of the Holy See from jurisdiction of domestic courts. At issue was a suit by 24 Belgian, French and Dutch nationals who alleged that as children they were abused by priests. They filed a class action for damages contending that the Church dealt with its sexual abuse problem in a structurally deficient manner. After the dismissal by Belgian courts, 20 of the plaintiffs were able to obtain compensation through the Church's own arbitration center for sexual abuse claims.

European Court Says Russia Violated Convention In Refusing To Register Same-Sex Unions

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, July 13, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated Article 8 (Respect For Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register the marriage of same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

49.  ... Article 8 ... does not explicitly impose ... an obligation to formally acknowledge same-sex unions. However, it implies the need for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of same-sex couples and of the community as a whole....

54.  The Court notes that the protection of “traditional marriage” stipulated by the amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020 ... is in principle weighty and legitimate interest, which may have positive effect in strengthening family unions. The Court, however, cannot discern any risks for traditional marriage which the formal acknowledgment of same-sex unions may involve, since it does not prevent different-sex couples from entering marriage, or enjoying the benefits which the marriage gives....

56.  ... [T]he respondent Government have a margin of appreciation to choose the most appropriate form of registration of same-sex unions taking into account its specific social and cultural context (for example, civil partnership, civil union, or civil solidarity act). In the present case they have overstepped that margin, because no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law.

According to Euronews, Russian authorities have rejected the Court's judgment, saying that the Court is meddling in the country's internal affairs. 

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.

European Court Awards Damages To Widow Whose Inheritance Was Reduced Under Sharia Law

As previously reported, in 2018 the European Court of Human Rights 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.  Sharia law resulted in her receiving only 25% of what she was bequeathed to under under a will left by her husband.  The court, however, left open the question of damages. Now in Sali v. Greece,  (ECHR, June 18, 2020), the Court held that Greece should taking steps to ensure that the wife retains her ownership of the property in Greece left to her by her husband. However if the government does not do this within a year, the Court held that Greece should compensate her for the value of the property lost, which amounts to a little over 41,000 Euros. She was also awarded 10,000 Euros for the suffering caused by the discrimination against her. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. Three dissenting judges thought that the court should also have dealt with property in Turkey left to the wife.

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.

European Court Says Azerbaijan Must Exempt Jehovah's Witnesses From Military

As reported by Courthouse News Service:

The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Azerbaijan cannot be forced to serve in the military.

“Freedom of thought, conscience and religion [is] one of the cornerstones of a ‘democratic society’ within the meaning of the” European Convention on Human Rights, the court said in a press release announcing the decision.

Here is the full text of the decision in French in In re Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, (ECHR, Oct. 17, 2019).

European Court Says Conviction For Holocaust Denial Does Not Violate Free Speech Rights

In Pastors v. Germany, (ECHR, Oct. 3, 2019), the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgment rejected claims by the chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany that his criminal conviction for a speech he gave in the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania violated his free expression rights under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Pastors was convicted of defamation and violating the memory of the dead for language in his speech denying the existence of the Holocaust.  The court said in part:

In the present case, the applicant intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered during the Second World War. Reiterating that it has always been sensitive to the historical context of the High Contracting Party concerned when reviewing whether there exists a pressing social need for interference with rights under the Convention and that, in the light of their historical role and experience, States that have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis ..., the Court therefore considers that the applicant’s impugned statements affected the dignity of the Jews to the point that they justified a criminal-law response. Even though the applicant’s sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation, was not insignificant, the Court considers that the domestic authorities adduced relevant and sufficient reasons and did not overstep their margin of appreciation. The interference was therefore proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was thus “necessary in a democratic society”.

... In these circumstances the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Accordingly the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

European Court Says Marriage Annulment By Greek Court Violates Couple's Rights

In Theodorou and Tsotsorou v. Greece, (ECHR, Sept. 5, 2019) [decision in French], the European court of Human rights held that Greece violated Art. 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to Marry) when it annulled the marriage of applicants under a law interpreted as barring the marriage of a man to the sister of his former wife.  A Greek court annulled the ten-year marriage of the couple on the petition of the husband's first wife who he had divorced. Greek law bars marriage of individuals related by collateral descent up to the third degree. As summarized by the court's English language press release:

[W]ith regard to the Government’s arguments concerning “biological considerations” and the risk of confusion, the Court noted that those problems did not arise in the present case. It was not clear what exactly those biological considerations involved, or the practical risk of confusion preventing the applicants’ marriage, given that they were not blood relatives and had not had children together. Furthermore, with regard to the Government’s argument that there existed a social need for communication between the members of a family and the outside world, the Court observed that the Government had not specified how the prohibition in question could assist in or serve such communication.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of LGBT Organizations

Last month, in Zhdanov and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, July 16, 2019), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia had violated Article 6 (access to courts), Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights in refusing to register three organizations that promote LGBT rights.  Russia had denied registration on various grounds, including the contention that the organizations could destroy the moral values of society, decrease Russian population, jeopardize the institutions of family and marriage, and incite social or religious hatred. The Court issued a press release announcing the decision.