CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7A11F50B { margin-left:6.52pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s36C5EC9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 12 June 2020 Published on 29 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48329/19 Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” against Lithuania lodged on 29 August 2019 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Senovės baltų religinė bendrija “Romuva” (Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva”), is an association established under Lithuanian law with its seat in Vilnius. It is represented by Ms   I.   Trinkūnienė, its high priestess ( krivė ). The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant association, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant association was registered as a religious association ( religinė bendrija ) in 2002, thereby obtaining legal personality. It is comprised of several religious communities ( religinės bendruomenės ) of Baltic pagan faith, some of which were officially registered in Lithuania in 1992 (see paragraph   13 below). 4.     In 2017 the applicant association lodged an application with the Seimas (the Lithuanian parliament) to be granted the status of a State-recognised religious association ( valstybės pripažinta religinė bendrija – see paragraph   15 below). 5.     The Ministry of Justice, having examined the applicant’s articles of association, its activities and the history of its faith in Lithuania, concluded that it fulfilled the legal requirements to be granted State recognition (see paragraphs 11 and 15 below). The Ministry observed that the attempts to revive the pre-Christian religion in Lithuania had begun in the 19 th   century, whereas the origins of the applicant association could be traced to the period of the Soviet occupation, even though during that time it had not been possible for it to openly function as a religious movement. The Ministry also noted that the applicant association was the largest non-traditional religious group in Lithuania – according to the national survey of 2011, it had more than 5,000 adherents, and from 2001 to 2011 that number had increased four times. Its faith was viewed positively by the society and its teachings did not violate the law or public morals. 6.     A group of members of the Seimas presented a draft resolution, proposing to grant the applicant the status of a State-recognised religious association. The draft was examined by the Law Department of the Seimas Registry, the parliamentary committees of culture, national security and defence, and human rights, as well as the Government. They all supported the draft. 7.     On 27 June 2019 the Seimas held a debate on the draft resolution. Statements given during the debate included the following: “... A letter has been received from the [Lithuanian] Bishops Conference ... I will emphasise some of their arguments ... It is clear that there has never been a uniform, universal Baltic religion. Nor is there unity between the currently existing organisations. And, what is the most important, if we legalise this cultural association as religious, then sooner or later we will hollow out the concept of a religious association, and any cultural association will be able declare itself a religion, whereas a religion will be considered simply as a cultural association, that is what we are trying to do here ...” “... It is the responsibility of the Seimas whether to continue the policy of the Soviet regime, when the ethnoculture and Christian traditions, which had co-existed in harmony until 1940, were separated and made opposite to one another. Sadly, today we may create such an opposition again ... The opposition between Lithuanianness ( lietuvybė ) and Christianity, between ethnoculture and Christianity, which we want to adopt today, is indeed the continuation of the Soviet project. I am not saying that “Romuva” is a project of the Soviet times, but that opposition, unfortunately, comes from the Soviet times, and thus I propose to postpone the vote. Maybe the time will come when we can grant State recognition to this association, but definitely not today.” “... This draft has nothing to do with freedom of religion or with actual recognition ... It is about public funding and education. What should be supported with taxpayers’ money and what should be taught in schools, that is what this draft is aimed at ...” “... Let us not forget that the Russian KGB has, since the Soviet times, been taking consistent action to strengthen paganism in Lithuania ... Those who submitted this draft are simply following instructions from the Kremlin, whether they want it or not ... Also let us think about our relations with Poland ... Imagine how you would look the Pope in the eye after trying to adopt this draft ... We will be laughed at in the entire Christian world because we will be unique in this respect ...” 8.     The draft resolution was not adopted. Eighty-six members of the Seimas, out of 141, were present. Forty voted for the draft, thirty-one voted against it, and fifteen abstained (see paragraph 22 below). 9.     In accordance with domestic law, there is no appeal against the decision of the Seimas regarding State recognition of a religious association. The applicant association may lodge a new request to be granted State recognition ten years after this decision (see paragraph   16 below). Relevant domestic law and practice Constitution 10.     Article 26 of the Constitution states, inter alia , that freedom of thought, conscience and religion may not be restricted and that the freedom to profess and spread religion or belief may not be limited otherwise than by law and only when this is necessary to guarantee the security of society, public order, the health or morals of people, or other basic rights or freedoms of the person. 11 .     Article 43 provides, inter alia , that the State recognises the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania, and other churches and religious organisations may be recognised if they have support in society, and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals. Churches and religious organisations are free to proclaim their teaching, perform their ceremonies, and have houses of prayer, charity establishments, and schools for the training of priests. They may conduct their affairs freely according to their canons and statutes. There is no State religion in Lithuania. 12.     Article 29 states that all persons are equal before the law, courts, and other State institutions and officials. Human rights may not be restricted and no one may be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, social status, belief, convictions, or views. Law on Religious Communities and Associations 13 .     Article 4 § 1 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations defines a religious community as a group of people pursuing aims of the same religion. Article 4 § 2 defines a church or a religious association as a union of at least two religious communities which profess the same religion. 14.     In accordance with Article 5, the State recognises nine traditional religious communities and associations which form part of Lithuania’s historical, spiritual and social heritage: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran, Evangelical Reformed, Russian Orthodox, Old Believer, Judaist, Sunni Muslim, and Karaite. 15 .     Article 6 § 1 states that other (non-traditional) religious associations may be recognised as forming part of Lithuania’s historical, spiritual and social heritage if they have support in society, and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals. The granting of State recognition means that the State supports the spiritual, cultural and social heritage of the religious association. 16 .     Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 provides that State recognition is granted by the Seimas. A religious association may apply for State recognition twenty-five years after its initial registration in Lithuania. If the request for State recognition is denied, a new request may be lodged after ten years. The Seimas decides on the granting of State recognition after receiving a conclusion from the Ministry of Justice. Legal instruments laying down the rights and privileges granted to religious associations 17.     Article 7 § 3 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations states that all religious communities and associations which have legal personality may receive assistance from the State for their cultural, educational and charitable activities, in accordance with the law. 18.     In line with Article 9 § 2 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations, at the request of students or their parents, traditional and other State-recognised religious associations may provide religious instruction in public schools. 19.     Article 3.24 of the Civil Code provides that a religious marriage performed by traditional and other State-recognised religious associations has the effects of a civil marriage. 20.     Article 5 § 7 of the Law on the National Radio and Television states that the national broadcaster provides traditional and other State-recognised religious associations with time to broadcast their religious services, in accordance with bilateral agreements. 21.     Article 8 § 2 (10) of the Law on the Land Tax provides that land which belongs to traditional and other State-recognised religious associations is not subject to the land tax. Other relevant legal instruments 22 .     Article 113 § 1 of the Seimas Statute provides that resolutions and other acts of the Seimas are adopted by a simple majority of the members present at the voting, except where the Constitution or the Statute provides otherwise. 23.     To date, the Seimas has granted State recognition to three religious associations: the Evangelical Baptist Union of Lithuania (July 2001), the Seventh-day Adventist Church (November 2016) and the New Apostolic Church of Lithuania (March 2017). Case-law of the Constitutional Court 24.     In its decision of 6 December 2007, the Constitutional Court held: “[T]he Constitution establishes three different statuses of churches and religious organisations in Lithuania: some churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania; other churches and religious organisations (non-traditional) are recognised by the State; and yet other churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania are neither traditional ... nor recognised by the State. ... In this context, it should be stated that the provision “the State shall recognise [...] other churches and religious organisations [...] provided that they have support in society and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals” of Article 43 § 1 of the Constitution means that [some] churches and religious organisations which are not traditional in Lithuania may be distinguished from [others] ... by granting them a special status, [that is to say] by granting them State recognition ... [T]he granting of this status is within the prerogative of the legislature. The requirement to “have support in society” provided in Article 43 § 1 of the Constitution means that the support for the said church or religious organisation must be strong and long-lasting, therefore, it may not be limited to a small group of people or a small part of the society, or to only several decades of activities, or to one or a few generations. The said support ... should be such that it would not raise any doubt. When deciding whether a certain church or religious organisation may be granted State recognition, it should be ascertained that there is support in society for that church or religious organisation. Under Article 43 § 1 of the Constitution, it should also be ascertained that the teaching and practices of that church or religious organisation are not in conflict with the law and public morals. If those conditions are not satisfied, State recognition ... may not be granted.” 25.     In its ruling of 13 June 2000, the Constitutional Court held: “One of the fundamental individual freedoms is entrenched in Article 26 § 1 of the Constitution: freedom of thought, conscience and religion shall not be restricted. This freedom guarantees an opportunity for people holding various views to live in an open, just and harmonious civil society. Not only is this freedom a self-contained value of democracy but also an important guarantee that the other constitutional human rights and freedoms would be implemented in a fully-fledged manner. ... Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is also inseparable from the principles established in the Constitution: the equality of persons, the prohibition on granting privileges, non-discrimination (Article 29 §§ 1 and 2), ... the secularity of State and municipal establishments of teaching and education (Article 40 § 1), the recognition by the State of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations and other churches and religious organisations provided that they conform to the criteria provided for in the Constitution (Article 43 § 1), ... and the absence of a State religion (Article 43 § 7) ... Freedom of [thought, conscience and religion] establishes ideological, cultural and political pluralism. No views or ideology may be declared mandatory and thrust on an individual, that is to say the person who freely forms and expresses his or her own views and who is a member of an open, democratic, and civil society. This is an innate human freedom. The State must be neutral in matters of conviction, it does not have any right to establish a mandatory system of views.” COMPLAINTS 26.     The applicant association complains under Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone and with Article 14, that the Seimas refused to grant it State recognition despite the fact that it met all the relevant legal requirements. Without such recognition, its religious activities are restricted – it cannot perform religious marriages which would have the effects of civil marriages, it is not granted air time by the national broadcaster to broadcast its religious services, etc. The applicant association also contends that the requirement to wait for ten years in order to lodge a new request for State recognition cannot be considered necessary in a democratic society, as it is not individualised and not limited to exceptional situations (for example, where there is a need to protect the national security or public order). Furthermore, it complains that the decision of the Seimas discriminated against it on the grounds of its religious views, as seen from the references to Christianity and to the Lithuanian Bishops Conference (a Catholic authority) during the parliamentary debate. 27.     The applicant association also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that it did not have an effective remedy against the decision of the Seimas because the domestic law does not provide for the possibility to appeal against that decision before courts or to challenge it in any other way.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant association’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2 (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v.   Moldova , no.   45701/99, §§ 116-17 and 119, ECHR 2001 ‑ XII)?   2.     Has the applicant association suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 9? In particular, when deciding not to grant State recognition to the applicant association, did the authorities remain neutral and impartial in exercising their regulatory powers (see Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria , no.   40825/98, §§ 90 and   92, 31   July 2008, and Savez crkava “Riječ života” and Others v. Croatia , no.   7798/08, §§   56 ‑ 58, 85 and 91, 9 December 2010)?   3.     Did the applicant association have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaints under Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?