Krupko and Others v. Russia (no. 26587/07) – Chamber Judgment 26 June 2014 – The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. After being banned in 2004, the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses rented a space with a local university. In 2006 a meeting with more than 400 people was interrupted by police, who detained several members. The Court found in favor of the applicants, and ordered Russia to pay reparations.

Egamberdiyev v. Russia (no. 34742/13) – Chamber Judgment 26 June 2014 – The applicant is a Uzbekistani national who was detained on suspicion of belonging to an extremist religious organization. He applied for asylum, claiming a real risk of torture if he was returned to Uzbekistan. The Court found in his favor. 

Biblical Center of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia (no. 33203/08) – Chamber Judgment 12 June 2014. The applicant runs a Pentecostal church in the Russia, which was dissolved by government order in 2007. One of the Center’s activities was the establishment of educational institutions for training of clergymen; accordingly the Center in 1996 opened a Bible school, the premises of which were used on Sundays by parent members of the organization to teach their children. In 2007 the church was shut down over safety regulations and the church’s lack of an education license, even though the church argued that education is a fundamental part of religion and the Russian Orthodox Church is not required to obtain a license. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 9 interpreted in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly). 

Buldu and Others v. Turkey (no. 14017/08) – Chamber Judgment 3 June 2014. The applicants are four Turkish Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to carry out their military service on account of religious convictions. They cited Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention, and said that they were treated unfairly while detained and tried. The Court found that there was no reason for Turkey to override the applicants’ religious beliefs, and ruled that there was a violation of Articles 3, 6, and 9. The Court ordered Turkey to pay reparations.

Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary (nos. 70945/11, 23611/12, 26998/12, 41150/12, 41155/12, 41463/12, 41553/12, 54977/12, 56581/12) – Chamber Judgment (Merits) 8 April 2014. The applicants are religious communities and individuals living or operating in Hungary. On 30 December 2011 the Hungarian Parliament enacted Act no. Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities. It entered into force on 1 January 2012. Apart from the recognized churches listed in the Appendix of the Act, all other religious communities, previously registered as churches, lost their status as churches and could continue their activities as associations. If intending to continue as churches, religious communities are required to apply to Parliament for individual recognition as such.  

The applicants did not obtain re-registration and consequently lost their status as churches, together with the state subsidies that had been due to them as such. The applicants complained under Article 11 – read in the light of Article 9 and, moreover, read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 – that the discretionary re-registration of churches amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of religion and was discriminatory. Under Articles 6 and 13, they complained that the relevant procedure was unfair and did not offer any effective remedy. Furthermore, a number of the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about the loss of State subsidies due to the loss of church status.

In its judgment of 8 April 2014 the Court found in particular that the Hungarian Government had not shown that there were not any other, less drastic solutions to problems relating to abuse of State subsidies by certain churches than to de-register the applicant communities. Furthermore, it was inconsistent with the State’s duty of neutrality in religious matters that religious groups had to apply to Parliament to obtain reregistration as churches and that they were treated differently from incorporated churches with regard to material benefits without any objective grounds. The Court accordingly found a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court considered that there was no cause for a separate examination of the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 9 and Article 11, or from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read alone or in conjunction with Article 14. Furthermore, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1. 

The Court held, by a majority, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the claims of non-pecuniary damage of five of the individual applicants. Furthermore, the Court held, by a majority, that the remaining questions of the application of Article 41 were not ready for decision. It therefore reserved that question and invited the parties to notify the Court within six months of the date when the judgment becomes final of any agreement that they may reach.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v.  United Kingdom (no. 7552/09) – Chamber Judgment 4 March 2014.  The applicant religious organization, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, complained under ECHR Article 9, alone and in conjunction with Article 14, of discrimination in regards to loss of statutory tax exemption for one of its places of worship, the Preston Temple in Lancashire, Northern England. The exemption was withdrawn because the Temple is open for worship only by worthy members of the Church and not by the general public. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol 1 alone and connection with Article 14 that denial of the statutory exemption was disproportionate discimination on the grounds of religion. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 of failure by the House of Lords to adequately apply the Convention. By its judgment of 4 March 2014, the Fourth Section declared the complaint under Article 13 inadmissible and the complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 admissible. Finding that the temple was not a public place of worship, the Court held that that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 9 and that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14.

Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania (no. 26270/04) – Chamber Judgment 19 November 2013. From the Court’s Press Release: The applicant is the Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish, which belongs to the Maramureş Greek-Catholic Diocese United with Rome and is located in the village of Bogdan Vodă, Romania. The case concerned a dispute between two Christian religious groups in Bogdan Vodă, namely the Greek-Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Greek-Catholic Parish complained in particular about the non-enforcement of a judgment awarded by a Romanian court in its favour in January 1998. The judgment obliged the village’s Orthodox Parish to allow the Greek-Catholic Parish to conduct religious services in one of the local churches, which had formerly belonged to the Greek-Catholic Parish but had been owned by the Orthodox Church after the Greek-Catholic Church was forcibly abolished in 1948. Following the rejection of an extraordinary appeal of the judgment in December 2000, the Greek-Catholic Parish secured an enforcement order in January 2001. However, since that time attempts by bailiffs to carry out the judgment had been stopped by violent protests of around 300 Orthodox villagers. A complaint by the Greek-Catholic Parish to the local Prosecutor’s office made in November 2002 had gone unanswered, and most recently – in January 2009 – the attempts to enforce the judgment had been stopped because the village’s Orthodox priest had refused to comply with the judgment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court), the Greek-Catholic Parish complained that the judgment had to date still not been enforced.

Violation of Article 6 § 1.  Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 300 (costs and expenses)

ASBL Church of Scientology v. Belgium (no. 42075/08) – Admissibility Decision. The case concerns a complaint by the Church of Scientology, a non-profit association, that statements to the media by the Belgian authorities about an investigation concerning it constituted a violation of its right to have a fair hearing and to be presumed innocent.

The Court reiterated that it had to ascertain whether proceedings were fair in their entirety. As there had not yet been any final judgment by the Belgian courts on the relevant “charge”, the part of the application concerning an alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing was premature and therefore had to be dismissed. In addition, given that the sole evidence submitted by the applicant association consisted of press articles, the Court took the view that the content of the remarks allegedly made by the authorities could not be attributed to them with certainty. It had not been shown that by informing the public about the inquiries in progress the authorities had breached the duty of discretion required of them by the principle of the presumption of innocence.

The Court found, therefore, dismissed the application organization’s claim under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) as premature, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and likewise found inadmissible that claim under Article § 2 (right to be presumed innocent), as it was manifestly ill-founded.

Gross v. Switzerland (no. 67810/10) – Chamber Judgment 14 May 2013.  From the Court’s press release:  The case concerned the complaint of an elderly woman, who wishes to end her life but does not suffer from a clinical illness, that she was unable to obtain the Swiss authorities’ permission to be provided with a lethal dose of a drug in order to commit suicide.

In finding a violation of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) the Court held in particular that Swiss law, while providing the possibility of obtaining a lethal dose of a drug on medical prescription, did not provide sufficient guidelines ensuring clarity as to the extent of this right. This uncertain situation was likely to have caused Ms Gross a considerable degree of anguish. At the same time, the Court did not take a stance on the question of whether she should have been granted the possibility to acquire a lethal dose of medication allowing her to end her life.

Vojnity v. Hungary (no. 29617/07) – Chamber Judgment 12 February 2013. The applicant, Péro Vojnity, is a Hungarian national. The case concerns his complaint that he lost access rights to his son because he belongs to the religious denomination Hit Gyülekezete (Congregation of the Faith). Mr Vojnity’s son was placed with his ex-wife after their divorce, in June 2000. Subsequently, the Hungarian courts withdrew custody from the mother and, refusing to give it to Mr. Vojnity because of his alleged proselytism, placed the boy with his older brother. Ultimately, in February 2008, the national courts removed Mr Vojnity’s access rights altogether, finding that he abused those rights by imposing his religious convictions on his son.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Vojnity complained in particular that the denial of his access rights was based on his religious beliefs and that he was treated differently to other people seeking access rights following divorce or separation.

In its judgment, the Court’s Second Section held that there has been a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and that no separate issue arises under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone or under Article 9 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. The Court further ordered that the respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 12,500 plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.

Three French religious tax-exemption cases (nos. 50471/07, 50615/07, 25502/07) – Chamber Judgment 31 January 2013.  In these three cases the applicant associations and individuals relied, in particular, on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), alleging that the fact that they had been required to pay tax on hand-to-hand gifts infringed their right to manifest and exercise their freedom of religion. The Court found a violation of Article 9 in all cases and ordered just satsifaction.

Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom / Ladele and McFarlane v. United Kingdom (nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) – Chamber Judgment 15 January 2013. The applicants are four British nationals, Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, Christians who complained of employment discrimination arising from their desires to manifest their religious beliefs — by wearing visible symbols of their beliefs, a silver cross (Ms Eweida) and a crucifix (Ms Chaplin) in the workplace and by refusing to provide services incompatible with their religious beliefs by officiating at civil partnership ceremonies for homosexuals (Ms Ladele) and providing psycho-sexual counselling to homosexual couples (Mr McFarlane). The applicants asserted that domestic law failed adequately to protect their right to manifest their religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. 

In its judgment of 15 January 2013, the Court’s Fourth Section held by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 9 as concerned Ms Eweida, but held unanimously that  there had been no violation of Article 9, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, as concerned Ms Chaplin and Mr McFarlane, and by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 as concerned Ms Ladele. 

The court held that the United Kingdom was to pay Ms Eweida 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30,000 for costs and expenses.

Dimitras and Others v. Greece (application nos. 44077/09, 15369/10 et 41345/10) — Chamber Judgment 8 January 2013). The applicants are Greek nationals residing in Greece. As members of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, a non-governmental organization involved in the field of human rights, they participated 48 times in 2009 and 2010 in criminal proceedings with an interest in the protection of human rights. They complained before the Court of the obligation they were under in this context to reveal their “unorthodox” religious beliefs during oaths taken before the courts. They invoked in particular ECHR Article 9 (right to freedom of religion or belief) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court found violations of both articles and ordered just satisfaction of 500 EUR to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses.

Juma Mosque Congregation and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 15405/04) – Admissibility Decision 8 January 2013. The applicant organization, the Juma Mosque Congregation (Cümə Məscidi Dini İcması ‒ “the Congregation”), was a Muslim religious community in Baku. The individual applicants are ten Azerbaijani nationals. The mosque, built in the 11th century, was used as a Muslim house of worship until Azerbaijan became part of the Soviet Union. In 1937 the mosque was closed to the public. For a time it was used as a warehouse and in 1968 the Soviet government converted it into a carpet museum. After Azerbaijan declared its independence in 1991, the applicants formed a new local community of Muslims and took possession of the former Juma mosque.

After a series of events involving government’s refusal to register the congregation as a religious organization and the eviction of the congregation from the mosque as a result of a domestic court’s judgment, the applicants applied to the Court in April 2004 complaining, inter alia, under Articles 9 and 11 that “the domestic authorities’ refusal to re-register the Congregation and making such registration conditional on submission to the Caucasus Muslims Board had violated the Congregation members’ rights to freedom of religion and freedom of association”, under Articles 9, 10, and 11 that “eviction of the Congregation from Juma Mosque, which they had previously occupied for twelve years without any interference, had violated the Congregation members’ rights to manifest their beliefs publicly in community with each other and their rights to freedom of expression and assembly”, and under Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 9, 10 and 11, that “they had been subjected to discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs and political opinions.”

In its judgment of 8 January 2013, the Court unanimously declared the application inadmissible.

H. v. Finland (no. 37359/09) – Chamber Judgment 13 November 2012. The applicant is a Finnish national who underwent male-to-female gender reassignment surgery in 2009. Having previously changed her first names, H. wished to obtain a new identity number that would indicate her female gender in her official documents. However, in order to do so her marriage to a woman would have had to be turned into a civil partnership, which H. refused to accept. She complained that making the full recognition of her new gender conditional on the transformation of her marriage into a civil partnership had violated her rights under in particular Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). She also asserted her right to marry under Article 12. 

The Court noted that Article 12 does not impose an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. Nor can Article 8, a provision of more general purpose and scope, be interpreted as imposing such an obligation. The matter of regulating the effects of the change of gender in the context of marriage falls within the appreciation of the Contracting State.  

Moreover, the Court noted that “in essence the problem in the present case is caused by the fact that Finnish law does not allow same-sex marriages. The Court has already noted above (see paragraph 50) that, according to its case-law, Articles 8 and 12 do not impose an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage (see Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, cited above, § 101). Nor can Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples a right to remain married. Therefore, in the light of these findings, it cannot be said that the applicant has been discriminated against vis-à-vis other persons when not being able to obtain a female identity number, even assuming that she could be considered to be in a similar position to them.”

The Court found that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.

Redfearn v. United Kingdom (no. 47335/06) – Chamber Judgment 6 November 2012. The case concerned a complaint by a member of the British National Party (“the BNP”) – a far-right political party which, at the time, restricted membership to white nationals – that he had been dismissed from his job as a driver transporting disabled persons, who were mostly Asian. The applicant worked as a driver for a private company. There had been no complaints about his work or his conduct at work and his supervisor, who was of Asian origin, had nominated him for the award of “first-class employee”. Following revelations in a local newspaper about Mr Redfearn’s political affiliation, a number of trade unions and employees complained about his continued employment. When elected as local councillor for the BNP in June 2004, he was summarily dismissed.

The applicant complained that his dismissal was discriminatory (ECHR Article 14) and had disproportionately interfered with his right to freedom of expression (ECHR Article 10) as well as to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11)  The Court considered itt appropriate to examine the complaints under Article 11, in the light of Article 10.

In finding a violation of ECHR Article 11 considered that it was important to bear in mind the consequences of dismissing Mr Redfearn, who, 56 years old, would most likely experience difficulty in finding alternative employment. Moreover, the Court was struck by the fact that he had been summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role. Further, as Mr Redfearn was employed by a private company, it fell to the Court to consider whether or not the domestic legislation had offered adequate protection of his rights under Article 11 and not whether his dismissal had been reasonable or proportionate.

First, the Court referred to its well-established case-law that, in a healthy democratic and pluralistic society, the right to freedom of association under Article 11 must apply not only to people or associations whose views are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those whose views offend, shock or disturb. A legal system which allowed dismissal from employment solely on account of an employee’s membership of a political party carried with it the potential for abuse and was deficient. 

P. and S. v. Poland (no. 57375/08) – Chamber Judgment 30 October 2012. The applicants, P. and S., daughter and mother, are Polish nationals. In 2008, at the age of fourteen, P. became pregnant as a result of rape. In order to have an abortion, in accordance with the 1993 Law on Family Planning, she obtained a certificate from the public prosecutor on 20 May 2008 to the effect that her pregnancy had resulted from unlawful sexual intercourse. 

The applicants submit that they subsequently encountered considerable difficulties in obtaining access to an abortion, which was finally carried out in a clandestine manner, in Gdańsk, approximately 500 kilometres from their home in Lublin, an 17 June 2008.

The Court noted the difficulties arising from lack of a clear legal framework, procrastination of medical staff and also harassment and held in particular that the applicants had been given misleading and contradictory information and had not received objective medical counselling; and, the fact that access to abortion was a subject of heated debate in Poland did not absolve the medical staff from their professional obligations regarding medical secrecy.

The Court found two violations of ECHR Article 8  (right to respect for private and family life) as regards the determination of access to lawful abortion in respect of both applicants (by six votes to one) and as regards the disclosure of the applicants’ personal data (unanimously).

It further held, unanimously, that there had been: A violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) in respect of P., and a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in respect of P.

The Court held that Poland was to pay P. 30,000 euros (EUR) and S. EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 16,000 to both applicants in respect of costs and expenses.

Eparhija Budimljansko-Nikšićka and Others v. Montenegro (no. 26501/05) – Admissibility Decision 9 October 2012. The case concerned plots of land in Montenegro formerly owned by the diocese Budimljansko-Nikšićka and its churches and monasteries, which had been expropriated after World War II. The applicants complained in particular that their property rights had been breached, as they had not been restituted the land. The Court held in particular that the applicants had no legitimate expectation, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, that they would be restituted, since the key provisions of the law on which they relied had been declared unconstitutional before they filed their request.

As the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 had effect only in relation to the other rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Convention, the complaint under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had to be declared inadmissible as well.

The Court further declared the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 and under Article 13 inadmissible. It held in particular that their complaint with regard to the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 was manifestly ill-founded as the Montenegrin administrative court had decided on their claim within a year and three months. The Court stressed that under its case-law, Article 13 required a remedy at national level only in respect of complaints that could be considered arguable. Since the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Articles 6 and 14 had been declared inadmissible, they could not be regarded as arguable for the purposes of Article 13.

Jehovas Zeugen in Österreich v. Austria (no. 27540/05) – Chamber Judgment 25 September 2012. The applicant, Jehovas Zeugen, was a religious community established in Austria under the Religious Communities Act until May 2009 when it was granted the status of a religious society. The case concerned its complaint that it had been discriminated against before May 2009 when it was a religious community, as it had been subject to laws concerning employees and tax from which it would have been exempt had it been a recognized religious society. In particular, it would have been able to employ two ministers from the Philippines in 2002 for the benefit of its Tagalog speaking members in Austria and it could have been exempt from inheritance and gift tax for a donation made to it in 1999. It relied on Article 9 (freedom of religion), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The Court found a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 (as regards the proceedings under the Employment of Aliens Act) as well as violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (as regards the proceedings under the Inheritance And Gift Tax Act), and award just satisfaction of EUR 12,834.45 (costs and expenses). The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

Catholic Archdiocese of Alba Iulia v. Romania (no. 33003/03) – Chamber Judgment 25 September 2012. The case concerned a Catholic religious community, the Archdiocese of Alba Iulia, which wished to recuperate, under an emergency order enacted in 1998, ownership of assets confiscated by the Romanian authorities during the communist period. The Court found that, almost 14 years after the beginning of the preliminary procedure provided for by the order, the applicant association had received no notification of a decision, thus leaving it in a state of uncertainty as to the fate of those assets. The Court noted that the cultural and historical importance of the property in question made this failure to act even more incomprehensible, and held, unanimously, that there had been in this a violation of ECHR Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). [Decision in French only.]

Ladele v. United Kingdom (no. 51671/10), McFarlane v. United Kingdom (no. 36516/10), Eweida v. United Kingdom (no. 48420/10) & Chaplin v. United Kingdom (no. 59842/10) – Chamber Hearing 4 September 2012. {Webcast of the Hearing}  These four linked cases from the United Kindgom concern Chrisitans who complain of rights violations in regards to their employment. Two applicants hold beliefs that same-sex marriage (Ms Ladele) and homosexual activity (Mr McFarlane) are contrary to God’s law or sinful. As a Registrar, Ms Ladele refused to conduct same-sex civil marriage ceremonies or to register such ceremonies. She was informed that she was required to perform such services, on pain of termination. As a counsellor, Mr McFarlane refused to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples, and he was dismissed from his employment.  The applicants complain that domestic law failed adequately to protect their right to manifest their religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14. The first applicant further complains of lack of effective remedy (Article 13), while the second applicant complains of lack of a fair trial (Article 6) and violation of right to respect for private life (Article 8). The other applicants complain of employment discrimination arising from their desires to manifest their religious beliefs by wearing visible symbols of their beliefs, a silver cross (Ms Eweida) and a crucifix (Ms Chaplin) in the workplace. These applicants assert that domestic law failed adequately to protect their right to manifest their religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. 

Costa and Pavan v. Italy (no. 54270/10) – Chamber Judgment 17 July 2012. The case concerned an Italian couple who are healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis and wanted, with the help of medically-assisted procreation and genetic screening, to avoid transmitting the disease to their offspring. The Court noted the inconsistency in Italian law that denied the couple access to embryo screening but authorised medically-assisted termination of pregnancy if the foetus showed symptoms of the same disease. The Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life was disproportionate, and therefore found a violation of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). [Decision in French only.]

Fusu Arcadie and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 22218/06) – Chamber Judgment 17 July 2012. The applicants, eight Moldovan nationals, allege that the government’s failure to issue them with documents necessary for registering their church had violated their rights under Articles 6 § 1, 9 and 11 of the Convention. In its judgment of 17 July 2012, the Court’s Third Section declared the applicants’ Article 9 complaint admissible and found a violation and ordered payment to the applicants of EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 880 in respect of costs and expenses. It was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 and 11. 

Iorgoiu v. Romania (no. 1831/02) – Chamber Judgment 17 July 2012.  A Romanian citizen imprisoned for fraud complains, inter alia, of violation of his Article 9 religious freedom rights in the impossibility of practicing his Orthodox faith in prison. Having in an admissibility decision of 7 December 2010 found that the Article 9 issue was among those for which judgment should be deferred, the Court issued questions to the parties on 10 December, among the queries one asking whether the applicant could practice his religion in prison, and, if not, whether the interference was necessary as prescribed by law, in the sense provided by Article 9.

By its judgment of 17 July 2012, the Court, while finding a violation of Article 3 prohibitions against torture or inhuman treatment, dismissed the Article 9 complaint as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicant had submitted no evidence of interference by authorities in the practice of his religion.

Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v. Netherlands (no. 58369/10) – Admissibility Decision 12 July 2012.  The applicant (SGP) is “a confessional political party firmly rooted in Dutch Reformed Protestantism” (though it has no formal links with any particular church), alleging that a judgment against it by the Dutch Supreme Court violates Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association) of the Convention. The Third Section unanimously found the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible.

Professing “the absolute authority of the Word of God over all areas of societal life,” the SGP teaches that men and women have different roles in society, and that women should not be eligible for public office. Actions were brought against the SGP in Netherlands courts by a variety of NGOs, alleging that the party’s articles of association were in violation of fundamental rights of equal treatment of men and women and fundamental rights in terms of the right of women to political participation, contravening Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the Convention, Articles 25 and 26 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and relevant provisions of the Netherlands Constitution.

The Regional Court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing on the ground that they had no legal interest and struck the case out of its list. A number of actions ensued, culminating in an April 9, 2010 ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court that the state is obliged to take effective measures to put an end to the SGP’s refusal to grant women passive suffrage on biblical grounds.  

It its judgment, the Third Section observed that the fact that “no woman has expressed the wish to stand for election as a candidate for the applicant party” is not decisive, and that the “same conclusion flows naturally from Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 14” as that reached by the Dutch Supreme Court. Even so, “the Court must refrain from stating any view as to what, if anything, the respondent Government should do to put a stop to the present situation. The Court cannot dictate action in a decision on admissibility; it is, in any case, an issue well outside the scope of the present application.”

Association Les Témoins de Jehovah v. France (no. 8916/05) – Chamber Judgment (Just Satisfaction) 5 July 2012. Applicant, Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah (Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses), alleged that a 1995 French parliamentary report classifying it as a sect resulted in discrimination against the organization, in particular resulting in a tax audit. When the Association declined to declare donations for the requested years, asking instead for the sort of tax exemption granted liturgical associations, automatic taxation procedure was begun against the Association. After failing to prevail in the French courts, the Association brought the matter before the ECtHR, complaining of violation of numerous ECHR provisions.  

On 17 June 2008 the Court declared all complaints inadmissible except those alleging that the tax proceedings against the Association infringed Articles 9 and 14. On 29 September 2010 the Court declared the Article 14 religious discrimination complaint inadmissible, as domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The Court considered, however, that the Article 9 complaint of infringement of the right to freedom of religion “raised complex issues of fact and law which could not be resolved at this stage … but required examination on the merits.”  The Court thus declared this part of the complaint admissible.

In its judgment of 30 June 2011, the Fifth Section found a violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of religion), noting that the supplementary tax assessment “had concerned the entirety of the manual gifts received by the association, although they represented the main source of its funding. Its operating resources having thus been cut, it had no longer been able to guarantee to its followers the free exercise of their religion in practical terms.” The Court found the Article 41 (just satisfaction) issue not ready for decision and reserved it.

By a judgment of 5 July 2011 the Court held that France is to reimburse the applicant association 4,590,295 euros (EUR) for the taxes unduly paid and EUR 55,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment was issued in French only.  Judge Costa expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

Genderoc-M v. Moldova (no. 9106/06) – Chamber Judgment 12 June 2012. The applicant NGO attempted to hold a demonstration outside the Parliament of Moldova in May 2005, to encourage the adoption of laws to protect sexual minorities from discrimination. In refusing to allow the demonstration, the government cited its legitimate aim of protecting the sensibilities of the Moldovan Orthodox Christian population (who would not tolerate same-sex relationships). The Court rejected the government’s argument, finding a violation of ECHR Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and of Article 14 (discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 11. The Court also found that the applicant had no effective remedy against the alleged violation of their freedom of assembly, and thereby suffered a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 11. The applicant association was awarded pecuniary EUR 860) and non-pecuniary (EUR 7250) damages, as well as costs (EUR 2900).

Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (no. 31098/08) – Admissibility Decision 12 June 2012.  [Excerpts from the Court’s press release:] The case concerned the prohibition in Germany of the activities of an Islamic association, which advocates the overthrow of non-Islamic governments and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

The Court held in particular that under Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights, it was impossible to derive from the Convention a right to engage in an activity aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The association could therefore not rely on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) to complain about the ban on its activities.

Fernández-Martínez v. Spain (no. 56030/07) – Chamber Judgment 15 May 2012.  [On 19 October 2012 the Court agreed to refer the case to the Grand Chamber.] [Excerpts from the Court’s press release:] The case concerned the decision not to renew of the contract of a priest, who was married with five children, to teach Catholic religion and morals, following the publication of an article disclosing his membership of the “Movement for Optional Celibacy”.

The applicant, Mr José Antonio Fernández Martínez, is a Spanish national who was ordained as a priest in 1961. In 1984 he applied to the Vatican for dispensation from celibacy. He was married in a civil ceremony in 1985, and he and his wife have five children. He taught Catholic religion and morals in a State high school from October 1991, his contract being renewed every year by the Bishop of the Diocese of Cartagena. A newspaper article published in 1996 published a photo of Mr Fernández Martínez, together with his wife and five children, and reported that he was a member of the “Movement for Optional Celibacy”, a group disagreeing with the Church’s position on abortion, divorce, sexuality and conception.

On 15 September 1997 the Vatican authorities granted Mr Fernández Martínez’s application for dispensation from celibacy, specifying that anyone granted such a dispensation was barred from teaching the Catholic religion in public institutions, unless the local bishop decided otherwise “according to his own criteria and provided that there is no scandal.” On 29 September 1997 the Diocese of Cartagena informed the Ministry of Education of its intention not to renew Mr Fernández Martínez’s contract for the 1997/98 school year.  The Ministry notified him of the decision, which was effective from 29 September 1997.

Mr Fernández Martínez appealed to the employment tribunal, which found that he had been discriminated against because of his civil status and his membership of the Movement for Optional Celibacy. It declared his dismissal null and void and ordered his reinstatement in his former post. The Ministry of Education, the regional education authority and the Diocese appealed, and the High Court of Justice – noting that the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s rights had to be considered proportionate to the aim pursued, namely the avoidance of scandal – found that the contract, which had to be renewed annually by the bishop, had simply expired. Mr. Fernández Martínez had therefore not been dismissed.

On June 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

Before the ECtHR the applicant, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, alleged that the nonrenewal of his contract because of his personal and family situation had infringed his right to respect for his private and family life. He complained that he had been discriminated against and that the public disclosure of his status as a married priest with several children formed part of his freedom of expression.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Fernández Martínez complained that two of the judges who had delivered the Constitutional Court judgment had not been impartial and should have stood down because their religious beliefs favoured the Catholic Church.

The Court observed that the question was whether the State was required to give precedence to Mr Fernández Martínez’s right under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) over the rights of the Church under Articles 9 (right to freedom of religion) and 11 (freedom of association) and whether it had afforded him sufficient protection. 

Since the competent courts had struck a fair balance between several private interests, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 8. As to the Article 6 complaint, the Court observed that Mr Fernández Martínez had not used all the means available to him in domestic law to challenge the impartiality of the judges concerned, and dismissed his complaint on that account for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09, 67354/09) – Chamber Judgment 10 April 2012. Between 1999 and 2006 all six applicants were indicted on various terrorism charges in the United States of America. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan are accused of various felonies including providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country. Abu Hamza has been charged with 11 different counts of criminal conduct related to the taking of 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, advocating violent jihad in Afghanistan in 2001 and conspiring to establish a jihad training camp in Bly, Oregon (the USA) between June 2000 and December 2001. Mr Aswat was indicted as Abu Hamza’s co-conspirator in respect of the latter charges. Mr Bary and Mr Al-Fawwaz were indicted, along with Osama bin Laden and 20 others, for their alleged involvement in, or support for, the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. Mr Al-Fawwaz has notably been charged with more than 269 counts of murder.

On the basis of those indictments, the US Government requested each applicant’s extradition from the United Kingdom. As a result, all six applicants were arrested in the UK and placed in detention pending extradition. They then contested their extradition in separate proceedings in the English courts, without success, their requests for leave to appeal to the House of Lords and the Supreme Court ultimately being rejected between 2007 and 2009.

The present cases concern applications lodged by the six applicants between 2007 and 2009. The Court decided to deal with the applications together since they raised similar issues.

In its judgment of 10 April 2012, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there would be: 

no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of conditions of detention at ADX Florence (a “supermax” prison in the United States) – if Mr Ahmad, Mr Ahsan, Mr Abu Hamza, Mr Bary and Mr Al-Fawwaz were extradited to the USA;

and, no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the length of their possible sentences if Mr Ahmad, Mr Ahsan, Abu Hamza, Mr Bary and Mr Al-Fawwaz were extradited.

The Court adjourned its examination of Mr Aswat’s application as it required further submissions from the parties, on the relevance of his schizophrenia and detention at Broadmoor Hospital to his complaint concerning detention at ADX (see below “future procedure”).

Continuation of interim measures

The Court also, decided to continue its indication to the United Kingdom Government (made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) that the applicants should not be extradited until this judgment became final or until the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of one or both of the parties.

Manzanas  Martín (no. 17966/10) –  Chamber Judgment 3 April 2012. The applicant, Francisco Manzanas Martín, is a Spanish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Barcelona. He was a minister of the Evangelical Church until he reached retirement age. During his years as a minister, he received remuneration from the Evangelical Church. However, the Church did not pay any social security contributions on his behalf as this was not provided for by the legislation. Mr Manzanas Martín had previously worked as an employee before being ordained and had also been in paid employment for part of his time as a minister. When he applied to the National Social Security Agency for a retirement pension, his application was refused on the grounds that he had not completed the minimum period of pensionable service. Mr Manzanas Martín contends that the decision to refuse him a retirement pension was in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. He submits that the legislation discriminated against Evangelical ministers compared with Catholic priests, insofar as the former had been admitted later to the social security scheme and had then not been allowed to count their earlier years as ministers towards the minimum period of pensionable service, unlike Catholic priests. The applicant relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and on Article 9 (right to freedom of religion).

In a Third Section judgment of 3 April 2012, the Court found a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol 1. As to the Article 9 issue, the Court declared it admissible, but found no need to examine the issue separately.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the question regarding Mr Manzanas Martin’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage was not ready for decision and reserved it in its entirety.

The Court held that Spain was to pay the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Sessa v. Italy (no. 28790/08)  – Chamber Judgment 3 April 2012. The applicant, Francesco Sessa, is an Italian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Naples (Italy). He is a member of the Jewish faith and a lawyer by profession. In his capacity as representative of one of the complainants in a case, he appeared before the investigating judge at a hearing concerning the production of evidence. As the judge was prevented from sitting, his replacement invited the parties to choose between two dates for the adjourned hearing. The applicant pointed out that both dates corresponded to Jewish religious festivals and that his religious obligations would prevent him from attending. The hearing was set down for one of the two dates in question and Mr Sessa applied for an adjournment. The prosecution and counsel for the defendants objected to the application on the ground that there was no legally recognised reason for granting an adjournment. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of religion), Mr Sessa alleges that the refusal by the judicial authority to postpone the hearing set down for the date of a religious festival prevented him from taking part in his capacity as the representative of one of the complainants and infringed his right to manifest his religion freely.

In a Third Section judgment of 3 April 2012, the Court found no violation of Article 9 in the case. “The Court considered in particular that, even supposing that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right under Article 9, such interference, prescribed by law, was justified on grounds of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others – and in particular the public’s right to the proper administration of justice – and the principle that cases be heard within a reasonable time.

Charalambous and Others and 28 other cases v. Turkey (no. 46744/07) – Inadmissible 2 April 2012. The applicants are Cypriot nationals, relatives of 29 Greek-Cypriot men, both civilians and army personnel, who went missing in July-August 1974 following the invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkish armed forces. The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons. All applicants complain under Article 2 about the disappearance and death of their relatives and the lack of effective investigation into those matters, as well as invoking Articles 3 (as concerns the victim and/or themselves) and 5 in that regard. Other complaints are made under Article 8 of the effect on family life and under Article 14 of discrimination. Complaints are also made under Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17.

The Court adjourned the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning the lack of investigation following the discovery of the remains of their relatives and the treatment which they suffer as a result, and declared the rest of the application inadmissible.

In a decision of 2 April 2012, the Court judged that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 were premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The Court further decided not to pursue the complaints raised under Article 34 of the Convention.

Gas and Dubois v. France (no. 2595/07) – Chamber Judgment 15 Mar 2012. The applicants are two cohabiting French women. The case concerned the refusal of the application by one of the women for a simple adoption order in respect of the child of the other. The Court saw no evidence of a difference in treatment based on the applicants’ sexual orientation, as opposite-sex couples who had entered into a civil partnership were likewise prohibited from obtaining a simple adoption order. The Court, therefore, found no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Brbyan v. Netherlands (no. 33319/11) – Stricken 13 March 2012. The applicant, Mr Wainys Krekor Brbryan, is an Iraqi national, Christian, who lives in Ter Apel, Netherlands. He complained before the ECtHR under Article 3 of the Convention of the refusal of his request for asylum in the Netherlands and his threatened forced return to Iraq. 

On 22 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that the policy in force in the Netherlands relating to Christian asylum seekers from Iraq had not been applied correctly in the case of the applicant and that it had therefore been decided to withdraw the decision taken on the applicant’s asylum request. It had subsequently been decided to grant the applicant a residence permit for the purpose of asylum valid until 4 November 2015.

In light of this, the Court unanimously decided to strike the application from its list of cases.

Mehmet Emin Şimşek v. Turkey (no. 5488/05) – Chamber Judgment 28 February 2012. The applicant, Mehmet Emin Simsek, is a Turkish national who lives in Batman (Turkey). He was an imam at a mosque. In February 2000 he was arrested and taken into pre-trial detention in the context of proceedings concerning the illegal armed fundamentalist organisation Hizbullah. On 5 May 2000 the Office of the Director of Religious Affairs decided to dismiss him because of his links with the illegal organisation, stating that he no longer met the requirements for working as an imam.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Simsek complained that he had not had the benefit of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court since he had not been provided with an advance copy of the opinion of State Counsel at that court.

The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded just satisfaction in the amount of EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.

Vejdeland v. Sweden (no. 1813/07) – Chamber Judgments 9 February 2012. Held, unanimously, that criminal conviction for distributing leaflets offensive to homosexuals was not contrary to freedom of expression (Article 10).

Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania (no. 2330/09) – Chamber Judgment 31 January 2012. [Excerpts from the Court Press Release]: The applicant, Păstorul cel Bun, is a union established in April 2008 by 35 clerics and lay members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the majority of them Orthodox priests in parishes of the Metropolis of Oltenia (a region in south-western Romania). The aim of the union, as set forth in its statutes, is to defend the professional, economic, social and cultural interests of its members, both clerics and lay members, in their dealings with the Church hierarchy and the Ministry of Cultural and Religious Affairs.

The union made an application to the district court to be granted legal personality and to be entered in the official register of trade unions. The representative of the Archdiocese objected to the application, arguing that the internal regulations of the Orthodox Church prohibited the creation of any kind of association without the prior consent of the Archbishop. The Romanian court first ordered the registry of the trade union and then, upon the appeal of the Archdiocese, set aside the action. In its application to the European Court of Human Rights, the union alleged violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).

In finding a violation of Article 11, the Court considered that a relationship based on an employment contract could not be “clericalised” to the point of being exempted from all rules of civil law. Members of the clergy, and to a still greater extent lay employees of the Church, could not be excluded from the scope of protection of Article 11. The refusal to register the union had been based on the laws on freedom of association and religious freedom, interpreted in the light of the Statute of the Orthodox Church, and had therefore had a legal basis. … Moreover, the county court had not established that the union’s program was incompatible with a “democratic society”, still less that it represented a threat to democracy. The criteria defining a “pressing social need” had therefore not been met. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant union 10,000 euros (EUR) to cover all heads of damage.

Kovaļkovs v. Latvia (no. 35021/05) – Inadmissible 31 January 2012. Applicant, a member of Hare Krishna, was imprisoned in Latvia. He complained of ill treatment and repeated violations of Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (discrimination) due to ridicule of his religious beliefs and failure of prison official to isolate him from the ridicule and to provide appropriate time and space for observance of his religious observance.  The Court found the complaints manifestly ill-found and the application therefore inadmissible.

Bigea v. Moldova (no. 21867/09) – Communicated 27 June 2011, Friendly Settlement/Stricken 24 January 2012.  The applicant, a Romanian national, is a priest of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia who has been assigned to a church in a Moldovan village for the past sixteen years.  He complains that refusal of the authorities to let him enter Moldova prevented his being able to be with his congregation for Easter, a very important religious event in Moldova. Applicant cites violations of ECHR Articles 6, 8, and 9. In view of a friendly settlement between the parties received by the Court on 15 November 2011, in which the Government of Moldova agreed to pay the applicant 2,500 euros to cover damages, expenses, and tax, the Court on 24 January 2012 decided to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Feti Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 5260/07) – Chamber Judgment 17 January 2012. The applicant, Mr Feti Demirtaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. He was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness at the age of 20 and refuses to perform his military service. He has declared his willingness to perform alternative civilian service. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Demirtaş complained of an endless series of prosecutions and convictions on account of his refusal to wear military uniform. He also alleged that he had been subjected to various forms of inhuman and degrading treatment in Şirinyer military prison, in his military unit in Erzurum and in Balıkesir military prison. He further contended that his successive convictions for refusing to serve in the armed forces had amounted to a violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Relying also on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complained of being forced, as a civilian, to appear before a court made up exclusively of army officers. The Court found violation of Article 3, Article 9, and Article 6 § 1 and awarded just satisfaction: EUR 15 000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5 000 (costs and expenses).

Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom (no. 8139/09) – Chamber Judgment 17 January 2012. The applicant, Omar Othman (Abu Qatada), is a Jordanian national suspected of having links with al-Qaeda. He is currently detained in Long Latin prison in Worcestershire, England. He was granted asylum in the United Kingdom in 1994 on the basis of having been detained and tortured in Jordan. In May 1998 the applicant applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This application had not been determined before the applicant’s arrest in October 2001 under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. When that Act was repealed in March 2005, the applicant was released on bail and made subject to a control order. While appeal that order was still pending, the applicant was served with a notice of intention to depart.

In his appeal against that decision to the United Kingdom Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the applicant argued, inter alia, that it was incompatible with Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Relying on his previous asylum claim, he argued that his high profile would mean he would be of real interest to the Jordanian authorities. If returned, he would also face retrial for the offences for which he had been convicted in absentia. He would thus face lengthy pre-trial detention (in breach of Article 5) and, if convicted, would face a long term of imprisonment. All of these factors meant he was at real risk of torture, either pre-trial or after conviction, to obtain a confession from him or to obtain information for other reasons. He was also at risk of the death penalty or rendition to other countries, such as the United States of America. Relying on Article 6, he alleged that his retrial would be flagrantly unfair: the State Security Court, a military court, lacked independence from the executive and there was a real risk that evidence obtained by torture – either of him, his co-defendants or other prisoners – would be admitted against him. The appeal was dismissed in 2007.

In his application to the ECtHR, the applicant raised Articles 3 (alone and in conjunction with Article 13), 5, and 6. The Court found no violations of Articles 3, 5, and 13, but held “that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the real risk of the admission of evidence at the applicant’s retrial obtained by torture of third persons.”

Bukharatyan v. Armenia (no. 37819/03) – Chamber Judgment 10 January 2012.  
Tsaturyan v. Armenia (no. 37821/03) – Chamber Judgment 10 January 2012. 

The applicants, Hayk Bukharatyan and Ashot Tsaturyan, are Armenian nationals who were both born in 1980 and live in Yerevan. Jehovah’s Witnesses, they complained about being convicted and sentenced to two years in prison in April 2003 for refusing to serve in the army. They relied on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found a violation of Article 9 in each case and awarded each applicant just satisfaction of EUR 6,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000(costs and expenses).

Erçep v. Turkey (no. 43965/04) – Chamber Judgment 22 November 2011. The case concerned the refusal by the applicant, Yunus Erçep, a Turkish national who is a Jehovah’s Witness and conscientious objector, to perform military service for reasons of conscience. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been violations of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the applicant was awarded 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 5,000 euros in respect of costs and expenses.

Dimitras and Others v. France No. 2 (nos. 34207/08 and 6365/09) – Chamber Judgment 3 November 2011 (in French only). The applicants, Mr. Panayote Dimitras, Mr. Grigoris Vallianatos, and Mrs. Nafsika Papanikolatou, are Greek nationals. They are statutory representatives of the International Helsinki Foundation, a non-governmental organization working for the defense of human rights. In that capacity they took part in a number of criminal cases as witnesses. At each hearing the competent judicial authority would ask the applicants to place their right hand on the Bible and take the oath. The applicants would then inform the judicial authorities that they were not Orthodox Christians and would make a solemn declaration instead. Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, they complained that on a number of occasions when taking the oath at court hearings, they had been obliged to reveal their religious beliefs, and that there was no remedy in domestic law by which to have this complaint examined. The Court held that violations of both Article 9 and Article 13 had occurred in these cases.

Samina v. Sweden (no. 55463/09) – Chamber Judgment 20 October 2011. Applicant is a Pakistani Christian. She sought asylum in Sweden in 2007, and was refused by a final court decision in 2009.  She claimed that her return to Pakistan would result, because of her religion, in treatment in violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), as she would face a risk of being arrested, tortured and executed on charges of blasphemy, either by the authorities or religious fundamentalists due to her activities for a Christian organization. She also maintained that she would not be able to afford treatment upon her return to Pakistan for her poor mental health and complained that separation from a partner would violate Article 8 (right to family and private life) and moreover that she had suffered from ineffective counsel in violation of Article 13.

In a Fifth Section judgment of 20 October 2011, the Court declared that among the applicant’s complaints only the Article 3 complaint was admissible, and in respect to that complaint the Court found no violation, as “there are no indications that the situation in Pakistan is sufficiently serious to conclude that the return of the applicant thereto would constitute, in itself, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.” At the same time, the Court decided “to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to expel the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or further order.”

Dojan and Others v. Germany (nos. 319/08, 2455/08, 7908/10, 8152/10, 8155/12) – Admissibility Decision 13 September 2011. The case consolidates the applications to the Court of five German families, including young children, who are members of the Christian Evangelical Baptist Church and hold strong moral beliefs as part of their faith. They object to the mandatory sex education classes that form part of the fourth-year curriculum in the German primary school and to periodic mandatory workshops by school personnel for children aged 7 to 9 years, consisting of role-playing scenarios intended to raise awareness of the problem of sexual abuse of children by strangers or family members. Prevention of sexual abuse is part of the official curriculum. The workshops present situations in which sexual abuse can occur, teaching children to resist and report anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Parents are informed in advance of the content and purpose of the workshops.

The applicant parents objected to the sex education in the classrooms and workshops, including materials they feel are “partly pornographic” and contrary to Christian sexual ethics. They also objected to mandatory attendance policies involving annual school-sponsored carnivals. When the parents kept their children from these events, they were fined. The fines were upheld in District Court, which held, in particular, that parents’ right to educate their children and their right to freedom of religion was restricted by the State’s mandate to provide for education, which was implemented by means of compulsory schooling. The court held that the transmission of knowledge about sexual violence was also within the mandate of the State. As regards the carnival celebrations, the court found they did not involve any religious activities and had the sole purpose of permitting the children to celebrate together, and since the children could attend alternative events, the State’s duty of neutrality and tolerance had been observed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals, and the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the constitutional complaints. Three of the applicant families continued to prevent their children from participating in the workshops and school events and were subject to increasing fines, which they refused to pay. They were each sentenced to up to 43 days imprisonment.

Relying on ECHR Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education) and Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant families brought complaints before the Court in 2007, 2008, and 2010.

“The Court had previously found that the German system of compulsory elementary school attendance [was] aimed at ensuring the integration of children into society with a view to avoiding the emergence of parallel society. These considerations were in line with the Court’s case law on the importance of pluralism for democracy.” Accordingly, the German authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation in fining the parents for keeping the children from school, and the fines themselves were not arbitrary or excessive. The prison sentences were solely a means to enforce payment obligations.

The Court held that no separate issues arose under Articles 8 & 9 and found all applications inadmissible.

Janowiec and Others v. Russia (nos. 55508/07, 29520/09) – Admissibility Decision 5 July 2011.  [Chamber hearing in this case held 6 October 2011; judgment pending.]  Applicants are 15 Polish nationals living in Poland and the United States. This case is the result of the joinder of two applications concerning the death of the applicants’ relatives at the hands of the USSR authorities in 1940 and concerns the investigation into their death and the proceedings for their rehabilitation.

The applicants complained that Russian authorities had not discharged their duties under ECHR Article 2 to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the death of their relatives. The applicants further complained that lack of information about the fate of their relatives and the Russian authorities’ dismissive approach to their requests for information constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Under Article 6 the applicants complained that domestic proceedings had been unfair because they had been refused victim status and the courts had dismissed their appeals, leading to an Article 13 complain of lack of effective remedy.

Finally, applicants complained of Russian authorities’ refusal of their applications (Article 8, right to family life) and of lack of information on the burial places of their relatives (Article 9, freedom of conscience, religion, or belief). The Court found admissible the complaints concerning the alleged inadequacy of the investigation in to the massacre resulting in the deaths of their relatives and the allegedly degrading treatment inflicted on them by the Russian authorities. The remainder of the application was judged, unanimously, to be inadmissible.

For the case related to the Article 9 issue specifically, see Wołk-Jezierska and Others v. Russia (no. 29520/09).

Sotirov and Others v. Bulgaria  (no. 13999/05) – Admissibility Decision 5 July 2011. Applicants are 292 Bulgarian nationals, Christian Orthodox believers. For many years they attended religious services at the St. Anastassiy Temple in Varna. Some of the applicants are members of the church council governing the St. Anastassiy Temple. Since 1991 and until the events at issue the parish priest at the St. Anastassiy Temple was Mr. L. Popov, also one of the applicants.

For a number of years after the fall of communism and the beginning of the democratic changes in Bulgaria after, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was divided. Two groups of leaders claimed legitimacy and sought to unite the believers under their leadership. The applicants supported the “alternative Synod” presided over by Metropolitan Inokentiy and did not accept the leadership of Patriarch Maxim and the Synod presided over by him.

The applicants complained under Article 9 of the Convention that in an incident at the St. Anastassiy Temple in May 2003 their priest and their church council were forcibly removed in an unlawful manner and that by refusing to offer protection or take other remedial action the State de facto legalised and upheld an arbitrary intervention in their religious life. Moreover, the authorities’ attitude was motivated by the fact that the applicants did not recognise the leadership of Patriarch Maxim, which was the leadership favoured by the Government. The applicants submitted that the violation of their religious rights continued as they were obliged to perform religious rituals outside their temple and their priest and church council have not been reinstated. They also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as they were deprived of the possibility to use and govern their temple.

The applicants further complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of the above violations of their Convention rights. The prosecutors refused to assist them in respect of the forcible removal and their decisions were not amenable to judicial appeal. Furthermore, as a result of the adoption of the Religious Denominations Act 2002, which provided for ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church without a registration procedure, it was impossible for the local religious community, represented by Mr Popov, to institute judicial proceedings. In particular, the Regional Court held that the internal authorisation required by Article 165(12) of the Statute of the Church for the institution of proceedings had to be given by the very person who had ordered the unlawful action complained of – the head of the Varna and Veliki Preslav Eparchy Metropolitan Cyril.

The Court held, insofar as the Article 9 complaints are concerned, that the complaint of the State authorities’ refusal to provide protection against the “occupiers” is time-barred, and that Article 9 does not guarantee to believers a right to choose the religious leaders of their communities or to oppose decisions by the religions organization regarding the election or appointment of ministers. This part of the complaint therefore was rejected in accordance with Article 35.

For discussion of similar issues see the 2009 decision of the Court in Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 412/03 and 35677/04).

Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France (no. 8916/05) – Chamber Judgment 30 June 2011. The Applicant, Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah (Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses), alleged that a 1995 French parliamentary report classifying it as a sect resulted in discrimination against the organization, in particular resulting in a tax audit. When the Association declined to declare donations for the requested years, asking instead for the sort of tax exemption granted liturgical associations, automatic taxation procedure was begun against the Association. After failing to prevail in the French courts, the Association brought the matter before the ECtHR, complaining of violation of numerous ECHR provisions.  On 17 June 2008 the Court declared all complaints inadmissible except those alleging that the tax proceedings against the Association infringed Articles 9 and 14. On 29 September 2010 the Court declared the Article 14 religious discrimination complaint inadmissible, as domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The Court considered, however, that the Article 9 complaint of infringement of the right to freedom of religion “raised complex issues of fact and law which could not be resolved at this stage … but required examination on the merits.”  The Court thus declared this part of the complaint admissible and will deliver its judgment on the merits at a later date.

In its judgment of 30 June 2011, the Fifth Section found a violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of religion), noting that the supplementary tax assessment “had concerned the entirety of the manual gifts received by the association, although they represented the main source of its funding. Its operating resources having thus been cut, it had no longer been able to guarantee to its followers the free exercise of their religion in practical terms.” 

The Court found the Article 41 issue not ready for decision and reserved it. The judgment was issued in French only.  Judge Costa expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

Ouardiri v. Switzerland (no. 65840/09) – Admissibility Decision 28 June 2011. The applicant, an Algerian-born French citizen living in Switzerland, a Muslim and former spokesman at the Geneva mosque, complained that the ban on the construction of minarets, now attached to the Swiss constitution, contravenes Article 9 and Article 14 guarantees against violation of religious freedom and discrimination because of religion. Citing Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant also complained of the lack of effective remedy in Switzerland that would enable a finding that the constitutional amendment at issue is contrary to the Convention.

In a companion case, Ligue des Musulmans de Suisse and Others v. Switzerland (no. 66274/09), the applicant associations made essentially identical claims to the claim in Ouardiri, and the applications were considered together in the 28 June decision of the Section Section.

By a majority decision of 28 June 2011, the Court found both applications inadmissible. The Court held that the applicants, though they were offended by the affront to their religious beliefs, could not be identified as victims of an event that might happen in the distant future.  Court “reiterated that Article 13 did not guarantee a remedy allowing a State’s legislation to be challenged on the ground of being contrary to the Convention.” The complaints, therefore, were manifestly ill founded and were judged to be inadmissible.

R. R. v. Poland (no. 27617/04) – Chamber Judgment 26 May 2011.  From the Court’s Press Release:  The case concerned a pregnant mother-of-two – carrying a child thought to be suffering from a severe genetic abnormality – who was deliberately denied timely access to the genetic tests to which she was entitled by doctors opposed to abortion. Her child was born with Turner syndrome. The Court held by six vote to one that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Poland was to pay the applicant 45,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

From analysis by Grégor Puppinck, two contrasting items of note:

1. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Health intervened as a third party on behalf of the applicant, a move that is unprecedented in the ECHR. …

2. The Court specifically upheld, for the first time, the right to conscientious objection of medical practitioners. … the first time that the Court used this concept for medical practitioners.

For more from Puppinck, see also the ECLJ Press Release.

Negropontis-Giannisis v. Greece (no. 56759/08) – Chamber Judgment 3 May 2011. The applicant is a Greek national who lives in Athens. When he was 20 years old (and known as Nickolaos Giannisis), he was adopted by his uncle, Michaïl Negrepontis, an Orthodox bishop living in the United States. A year later the applicant returned to Greece. His adopted father returned to Greece 11 years later, in 1996, and died in 1998 in Athens. In 1999 the applicant’s adoption was declared final and legally enforceable in Greece, and he was able to add his adoptive father’s surname (Negropontis) to his original surname.

In 2000 and 2001 members of the Negrepontis family challenged the recognition of the adoption, and in 2003 the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the Athens Court of First Instance to hold that monks were prohibited from carrying out legal acts, such as adoption, which related to secular activities, as this was incompatible with monastic life and contrary to the principles of Greek public policy. The applicant complained before the European Court Human Rights of the refusal of Greek authorities to recognize the U.S. adoption order.

The ECtHR observed that the findings of the Court of Cassation in support of the Court of Appeals were based on ecclesiastical texts dating from the 7th and 9th centuries and that national legislation passed in 1982, two years before the adoption order in question, had recognized the right of monks to marry. The adoptive father had expressed his wish to have a legitimate son who would inherit his property. The action of the Greek courts, therefore, constituted inference with the applicant’s Article 8 right to respect for family and private life.

The Court also found discrimination under Article 14, since a biological child born to Mr Negrepontis at the time of the adoption could not have been deprived of filial rights. Bearing in mind the texts upon which the Court of Cassation had relied, the Court further found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), and since the Greek decision resulted in the applicant’s being deprived of his status as an heir, the Court also found violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The Court reserved consideration of the question of just satisfaction for a later date.

Wasmuth v. Germany (no. 12884/03) – Chamber Judgment, 17 February 2011. The applicant is a German national working as a lawyer and as a lector in a publishing house in Munich. Citing violations of Article 9 as well as Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (discrimination against him as a homosexual), the applicant complained that the requirement to disclose religious non-affiliation information on this wage-tax card is a violation of his religious freedom rights and that there is no legal basis for the public treasury to levy church tax; moreover, he as a homosexual could not be expected to participate in a tax collection system which benefited social groups – namely the churches – whose stated goal was to question and to debase an integral aspect of his personality. In finding no violations of Articles 8 and 9, the Court agreed with the domestic courts in finding that the while the obligation to inform authorities of his non-affiliation with churches or religious societies authorized to levy religious tax constituted an interference with Mr. Wasmuth’s right not to indicate his religious convictions, the obligation has a basis in German law that served the legitimate aim of ensuring the right of churches and religious societies to levy taxes. The Court further agreed with the German courts that the interference was proportionate to the aim of the law and that the information requested on the tax card was of limited informative value and did not serve any purpose outside the relation between the taxpayer and his employer or the tax authorities, the end of which was merely to avoid the applicant’s having to unduly pay church tax. [The Court further had regard to the fact that there is no European standard in the area of funding churches and religious groups, a question closely tied to each country’s history and tradition.] The Court followed a similar reasoning in finding no violation of Article 8. As the Article 14 complaint was not raised before the German Constitutional Court, it was rejected as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Judge Berro-Lefèvre, joined by Judge Kaladjieva, expressed a dissenting opinion.

Siebenhaar v. Germany (no. 18136/02) – Chamber Judgment, 3 February 2011. The applicant, Astrid Siebenhaar, is a German national who lives in Keltern (Germany). Ms Siebenhaar is a Catholic and worked as a childcare assistant in a day nursery run by a Protestant parish in Pforzheim. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she complained that she was dismissed without notice by the Baden Protestant Church on the grounds of her active involvement in a religious community (the Universal Church/Brotherhood of Humanity) whose teachings were deemed to be incompatible with those of the Protestant Church. In a judgment of 3 February 2011 the Court reiterated that the autonomy of religious communities is protected against undue interference by the State under Article 9 read in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). By putting in place a system of labor courts, reviewed by a constitutional court, Germany had complied with its positive obligations in that regard. The Federal Labor Court had found that, given her active commitment to the Universal Church, the applicant could no longer be counted on to respect her employer’s ideals. The Fifth Section found this ruling reasonable: “Ms Siebenhaar had been, or should have been, aware from the moment of signing her employment contract that her activities for the Universal Church were incompatible with her work for the Protestant Church.” The Court, therefore, found no violation of Article 9 in this case.

Boychev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 77185/01) – Chamber Judgment, 27 January 2011. The applicants are three Bulgarian nationals: Biser Boychev, Mihail Sergeev, and Rumyana Sharova, and an association, the Unification Church, a religious group active in Bulgaria since 1992. Followers of the “Moon” movement, the applicants were attending a meeting of approximately ten people at the home of Ms Sharova when it was interrupted by an identity check and a search by the police. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of disruption of religious services and seizure of religious object by authorities in 1997, and refusal by the authorities to register their association as a religious denomination. In a judgment of 27 January 2011, the Court found violations of Article 9 and of Article 13 taken together with Article 9 and ordered just satisfaction in the amount of 2,000 EUR each to the three applicants for non-pecuniary damage and 2,500 EUR in total for costs and expenses. Though reiterating that refusal by domestic authorities to grant the status of a legal entity to a religious community was capable of constituting an interference with rights to freedom of association and religion, in view of the fact that the applicants had ultimately applied for and obtained, unconditionally, the registration of their new association, the Court found inadmissible further complaints under Articles 9, 11, and 13.

Gisayev v. Russia (n. 14811/04) – Chamber Judgment, 27 January 2011. The applicant is a Russian national who lives in Grozny, in the Chechen Republic of Russia. He complained of being abducted from his home in October by a group of twenty to thirty well-armed and uniformed masked men wearing “Armed Forces of Russia” armbands and was subsequently detained, during which time he was forced to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes to make certain that he was not a radical Islamic fundamentalist, which was particularly insulting for the applicant, a devout Muslim. He was also intensively questioned concerning his religious beliefs and the Muslim traditions of the Chechen people. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 5, and 13 of torture and violations to liberty, security, and effective remedy were accepted by the Court, which held that Russia was to pay the applicant 55,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1,957 in respect of costs and expenses. The Court held that the applicant’s alleged breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition) had not been established.

Herrmann v. Germany (no. 9300/07) – Chamber Judgment 20 January 2011.  The applicant, Günter Herrmann, is a German national who lives in Stutensee. As the owner of two landholdings in Rhineland-Palatinate which are smaller than 75 hectares, he is automatically a member of the Langsur hunting association under German Federal Hunting Law (Bundesjagdgesetz). He complains about being obliged to tolerate the hunt on his premises even though he is opposed to hunting on moral grounds. He relies on Articles 9 (freedom of thought conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In a judgment of 20 January 2011, the Court held by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 9 in this case.

Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland (no. 16354/06) – Chamber Judgment, 13 January 2011.  The applicant association is a Swiss non-profit-making association, the national branch of the Raëlian Movement, an organization based in Geneva and founded in 1976 with the stated aim of making initial contact and developing good relations with extraterrestrials. In 2001 it asked the Neuchâtel police headquarters for permission to carry out a poster campaign. Permission was refused, in particular on the grounds that the campaign would be contrary to public order and public policy; the Raëlian Movement had already been the subject of criminal complaints about certain sexual practices involving minors, and it also promoted cloning and eugenics and advocated a political system based on problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for governing. Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant association complained about the refusal. In a chamber judgment of 13 January 2011, the Court, noted that this was the first time it had examined whether the domestic authorities should allow an association to impart its ideas through a poster campaign using public space made available to it. The Court further noted that though the posters themselves did not contain offensive material, they referred to the association’s website, which make easily available to anyone, including children, offensive material and opinions: for example cloning services offered by the Clonaid company, the possible existence of sexually deviant practices involving under-age children and the threats to public order, safety, and morals posed by “geniocracy” and the criticism of contemporary democracies. The Court held, therefore, that the Swiss government was within the margin of appreciation afforded it by the European Convention with regard to public space and had given sufficient reasons for its actions. There is, therefore, no violation of Article 10 in this matter and no necessity to undertake a separate consideration of Article 9.

Chrysostomos II v. Turkey (no. 66611/09) – Admissibility Decision, 4 January 2011. The applicant, Chrysostomos II, Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Cyprus and New Justinian, acting on behalf of the Church as well as the church’s parishioners, complained of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about lack of access to and enjoyment of property and places of worship they were forced to abandon during the events in northern Cyprus in 1974. The applicant further complained, under Articles 9 and 11, of being prevented from holding religious services in religious sites in northern Cyprus belonging to the Church. Further complaints under Article 3 asserted that taken with religious and racial discrimination the deprivations amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 14 that the breaches were committed exclusively to the detriment of Greek-Cypriots and/or followers of the Greek-Orthodox Church. In its admissibility decision of 4 January 2011, the court rejected the Article 1 claims, questioning the applicant’s standing in the matter and his exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as the Court’s own jurisdiction. Finding that no further issues arose in the remaining complaints, the Court unanimously dismissed the application.

Milanović v. Serbia (no. 44614/07) – Chamber Judgment, 14 December 2010. The applicant, Života Milanović, is a Serbian national who lives in Belica (Jagodina Municipality, Serbia). Since 1984 he has been a leading member of the Hare Krishna Hindu community in Serbia and has received numerous threats and, beginning in 2001, has been assaulted physically many times by non-State agents. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment), and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the failure of the authorities to prevent the repeated attacks on him as well as to investigate properly those incidents. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 3, he further alleged that this failure was due to his religious affiliation. In its judgment of 14 December 2010, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 and by 6 votes to 1 that there had also been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3.  The Court further ruled, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 2 and 13. Serbia is to pay EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 in respect of costs and expenses.

HADEP and Demir v. Turkey (no. 28003/03) – Chamber Judgment, 14 December 2010.  The applicants are Halkın Demokrasi Partisi (People’s Democracy Party, “HADEP”), a political party established on 11 May 1994, and Turan Demir, its general secretary, elected to that post in February 2003. Relying mainly on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained about the dissolution, in March 2003, of the HADEP party. They further complained about the party’s dissolution under Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections). In its judgment of 14 December 2010, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11 and that in view of these findings, there was no need to examine the other complaints. Under Article 41, the Court further held that Turkey is to pay Mr. Demir EUR 24,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be held by him for members and leaders of HADEP, and also that EUR 2,200 is to be paid to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.

O’Donoghue and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 34848/07) – Chamber Judgment 14 December 2010).  The applicants are a Nigerian national, Osita Chris Iwu, and three dual British and Irish nationals, Sinead O’Donoghue, Ashton Osita Iwu and Tiernan Robert O’Donoghue. Relying, in particular, on Article 12 (right to marry) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 12, the applicants complained about the existence of a Certificate of Approval Scheme, which required people subject to immigration control to pay a fee in order to obtain permission to marry, and about how that scheme has been applied to them. Relying further on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) alone and in conjunction with Article 14, and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) alone and in conjunction with Article 14, the applicants complained about not being able to marry, unless they did so in an Anglican church, and about undue interference with their private and family life. In its decision of 14 December 2010, the Court found, unanimously, violations of Article 12, Article 14 (in conjunction with Article 9), and Article 12. There was no need, said the Court, to examine separately the complaints under Article 8, either read alone or in conjunction with Article 14. By way of just satisfaction (under Article 41), the Court held that the United Kingdom is to pay the applicant EUR 8,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 295 British pounds in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 16,000 for costs and expenses.

Savez crkava “Riječ života” and Others v. Croatia (no. 7798/08) – Chamber Judgment, 9 December 2010.  The applicants are Savez crkava “Riječ života” (Union of Churches “The Word of Life”), Crkva cjelovitog evanđelja (Church of the Full Gospel) and Protestantska reformirana kršćanska crkva u Republici Hrvatskoj (Protestant Reformed Christian Church in the Republic of Croatia). Based in Zagreb and Tenja, they are churches of a Reformist denomination which have been registered as religious communities under Croatian law since 2003. The case concerns the applicant churches’ complaint that, unlike other religious communities in Croatia, they could not provide religious education in public schools and nurseries or obtain official recognition of their religious marriages as the domestic authorities refused to conclude an agreement with them regulating their legal status. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination). In a chamber judgment issued 9 December 2010, the Court found no reason that Croatia’s argument that other religious communities satisfied the criterion of being “historical religious communities of the European cultural circle” could not equally be applied to the applicant churches. The Court concluded that the criteria were not applied on an equal basis to all religious communities, and that this difference in treatment did not have an objective and reasonable justification, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9. The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the Article 1 issue, and found the complaints under Article 6 and Article 13, and under Article 9 alone to be inadmissible. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Croatia was to pay to each applicant church EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,570 in respect of costs and expenses.

Jakóbski v. Poland (no. 18429/06) – Chamber Judgment, 7 December 2010.  The applicant, Janusz Jakóbski, is a Polish national serving an eight-year prison sentence for rape, for which he was convicted in 2003. The applicant observed that other religious groups in the prison were allowed special diets, while he, a Buddhist, was consistently refused the meat-free diet required by the Mahayana Buddhist dietary rules he follows. He noted further that refusal of the food offered would have been regarded as beginning a hunger strike, resulting in disciplinary punishment. The 7 December judgment of the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Mr. Jakóbski’s Article 9 rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), but no need for a separate examination under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The Court reasoned that removing meat from the applicant’s diet, which diet could be seen as motivated or inspired by a religion, would not entail disruption to the management of the prison or decline in the standard of meals served to other prisoners. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Poland should pay EU 3,000 in non-pecuniary damage.

Muminov v. Russia (no. 42502/06) – Chamber Judgment (Just Satisfaction), 4 November 2010.  The applicant, Rustam Muminov, is an Uzbek national who is apparently serving a five-year sentence of imprisonment in Uzbekistan for participation in the activities of a proscribed organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir. Apart from that conviction, there is no other reliable news about Mr. Muminov. In a judgment of 11 December 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the applicant’s expulsion from Russia to Uzbekistan in October 2006 as well as violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) concerning his detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), reserved in that judgment, was resolved in a decision of 4 November 2010, in which the Court awarded Mr. Muminov 20,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Concerned that effective payment of the award should be ensured, the Court further requested that Russia facilitate Mr. Muminov’s contact with the COE Committee of Ministers, his representative in the Convention proceedings, or any other person entitled or authorized to represent him in the enforcement proceedings.

Sultanov v. Russia (no. 1248/09) – Chamber Judgment, 4 November 2010. The applicant, Nabi Sultanov, an Uzbek national, moved to Russia in March 2008. He was arrested there a few months later and placed in detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan where he was on a wanted list for being a member of a radical extremist movement. He has since been released under house arrest. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his extradition from Russia to Uzbekistan, where he faces politically motivated persecution by the local authorities, would expose him to a real risk of torture and ill-treatment and that his detention by the Russian authorities with a view to his extradition had been unlawful. (If applicant expelled) violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4. Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7,500 (costs and expenses).

Gaforov v. Russia (no. 25404/09) – Chamber Judgment, 21 October 2010. The applicant, Abdurazok Gaforov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1973 and is сurrently living in Moscow. Arrested in Moscow in August 2008, Mr. Gaforov alleges that, if extradited to Tajikistan where he is wanted on charges of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a transnational Islamic organisation banned in a number of countries, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Also relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he further complains about the unlawfulness and lack of judicial review of his detention pending extradition. Lastly, he alleges that the Russian courts’ decisions on his extradition stated that his “actions were punishable” under the Russian criminal legislation and that that wording could influence the Tajik courts, in breach of Article 6 § 2 (right to be presumed innocent).

Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07, 25924/08,14599/09) – Chamber Judgment, 21 October 2010.  Applicant is a gay rights activist complaining of ECHR violations by Russian officials, who prohibited gay rights parades or demonstrations in the interest of preserving public morals and preventing civil disorder. According to the Mayor of Moscow, 99.9% of the population of Moscow supported the ban, and he further asserted that all three “major” religious faiths – “the Church, the Mosque and the Synagogue” – opposed gay parades. Consequently applicant and others were prohibited from such activities as the following: “On 27 May 2006 the applicant and several other persons participated in a conference celebrating the International Day Against Homophobia, at which they announced their intention to gather in the Aleksandrovskiy Garden to lay flowers at the war memorial, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, allegedly to commemorate the victims of fascism, including gay and lesbian victims, and to hold a fifteen-minute picket at the Moscow mayor’s office to protest against the ban on the march and the picketing.” The fifteen demonstrators encountered 150 policemen and some 100 others opposing them. Arrests and physical attacks followed. Similar events occurred in two subsequent years, including numerous denials of applications for marches in 2008. Applications were made to the ECtHR in 2007, 2008, and 2009 were consolidated and communicated to the Russian government on 17 September 2009. The Court heard the matter on 20 September 2010, and on 21 October announced the unanimous finding of violations of Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly) and of Article 13 (effective remedy) and Article 14 (discrimination) in conjunction with Article 11. In accordance with Article 44, the Court awarded applicants EUR 12,000 in non-pecuniary damage and EUR 17,510 in costs and expenses.

Ayan v. Turkey (no. 24397/03) – Chamber Judgment 12 October 2010.  Applicant Timur Ayan is a Turkish national living in Istanbul. In 2000 he was arrested in the course of a police operation against the Islamist foundation Bilim Araştırma Vakfı. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been ill-treated while in police custody and that no effective investigation had been carried out into the matter. The Court found no violation of Article 3.

Obst v. Germany (no. 425/03) – Chamber Judgment, 23 September 2010. The applicant, Michael Heinz Obst, is a German national who grew up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church), which enjoys the status of legal person of public law (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts) in Germany. He held various positions within the church until 1986, when he was appointed to be the church’s Director of Public Affairs for Europe. In 1993 he was dismissed from his position after having confessed to an extra-marital affair. Mr Obst brought his case before the European Court of Human Rights complaining of violation of his rights under ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and refusal of the German courts to overturn his dismissal by the LDS Church for adultery. In its judgment of 23 September 2010, the Fifth Section found, unanimously, no violation of Article 8: “The conclusion that Mr Obst had not been subject to unacceptable obligations was reasonable, given that, having grown up in the Mormon Church, he had been or should have been aware when signing the employment contract of the importance of marital fidelity for his employer and of the incompatibility of his extra-marital relationship with the increased duties of loyalty he had contracted towards the Church as director for Europe of the public relations department.”

Schüth v. Germany (no. 1620/03) – Chamber Judgment, 23 September 2010. Applicant, Bernhard Schüth, is a German national who was dismissed in 1998 from his post as organist and choirmaster of his Catholic parish for adultery and bigamy. Failing in his efforts before the German labor courts to regain his employment, he brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights, relying on ECHR Article 8 protections of family and private life and citing failure of the German courts to support his reinstatement. While reiterating that the autonomy of religious communities is protected against undue interference by the State under Article 9 (freedom of religion) read in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the court nevertheless found a violation of Article 8 in Mr Schüth’s case, as his contractual agreement “could not be interpreted as an unequivocal undertaking to live a life of abstinence in the event of separation or divorce.” Moreover, the German labor courts had failed to weigh Mr Schüth’s rights, including his need for a specialized sort of employment, against those of the Church employer “in a manner compatible with the Convention.”