CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2024

.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 } .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 } .s2550CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:15pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sFA4FE8A0 { font-family:Arial; color:#040c28 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB0CB7F3F { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s41C60A5F { width:27.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD6EBB65 { width:26.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s32C319F3 { width:17.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s404E38D { width:21.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB4371AF0 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6D1DA23A { width:27.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s51DB038C { width:26.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9C1C242 { width:17.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8BB8D59 { width:21.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 4 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56007/21 Krasimir Dinchev VELEV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 12 November 2021 communicated on 13 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint, under Article 9 of the Convention (also raised under Article 10), that a ban on “door-to-door proselytising”, contained in a municipal Ordinance of 2016, seriously breaches the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion. Specifically, the applicants claim that, having designated evangelising and proselytising activities as “religious propaganda” and prohibited them outright, the provision in question placed a blanket ban on public and peaceful discussions by the applicants of their religious beliefs outside their places of worship. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the impugned Ordinance’s provision in court. In a final decision of 14 May 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the provision was in accordance with domestic legislation and with the right to respect for people’s home, private and family life as protected under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants claim that the ordinance is neither in accordance with the law, nor does it pursue a legitimate aim or is it necessary in a democratic society.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants have a victim status under the Convention (see, in particular , S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 57, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   2.     Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in relation to their Article 9 complaint that they cannot freely exercise their freedom of religion in community with others, since they risk being fined for it? If so, did they exhaust that remedy?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom to manifest their religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the prohibition contained in section 5(6) of the Shumen Municipal Ordinance No. 1 of February 2016 on “door-to-door religious propaganda”?   4.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention?   APPENDIX Application no. 56007/21   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Krasimir Dinchev VELEV 1975 Bulgarian Sofia 2. THE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN BULGARIA 1998 Bulgarian Sofia 3. Arkadiusz Krzysztof ZAKRZEWSKI 1972 Polish Skopje