CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1747/24 ANCIENT BALTIC RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION ROMUVA against Lithuania lodged on 4 January 2024 communicated on 18 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal by the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament) to grant to the applicant association the status of a State‑recognised religious association. On 27 June 2019 the Seimas denied State recognition to the applicant association. The relevant factual and legal background was presented in detail in the Court’s judgment in Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” v.   Lithuania (no.   48329/19, 8 June 2021). In the latter judgment, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   9, on account of the fact that when refusing to grant State recognition to the applicant association, the State authorities had not provided a reasonable and objective justification for treating the applicant association differently from other religious associations that had been in a relevantly similar situation, and the members of the Seimas who had voted against the granting of State recognition had not remained neutral and impartial in exercising their regulatory powers (ibid., § 147). The Court also found that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the applicant association had not had an effective domestic remedy with respect to the impugned decision of the Seimas (ibid., § 153). At the time of the lodging of the present application (on 4 January 2024), the supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgment of 8 June 2021 was still pending before the Committee of Ministers. As submitted by the applicant association, after the adoption of the Court’s judgment, the following relevant developments have taken place: In a ruling of 7 September 2021, the Constitutional Court held that Article   6 §   2 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations was in line with the Constitution in so far as it provided that a religious association could seek State recognition twenty-five years after its initial registration in Lithuania. However, that provision was not in line with the Constitution in so far as it provided that, if a request for State recognition was denied, the religious association could lodge a new request after ten years. On 29 September 2022 the Seimas held a debate and a vote on a new draft resolution proposing that the applicant association be granted the status of a State-recognised religious association. After a brief debate, it voted to return the draft resolution to the Seimas Committee for Human Rights for redrafting. On 23 March 2023 the Seimas enacted an amendment to Article 6 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations (ibid., §§ 59-60). The amendment entered into force on 1 May 2023. Following the amendment, Article 6 § 4 provides that the Seimas must decide on granting State recognition to a religious association within three months after receiving a conclusion of the Ministry of Justice on whether the religious association meets the criteria provided by law, excluding the periods between the sessions of the Seimas . If the Seimas does not adopt the draft resolution on State recognition, it has to consider the issue again until a decision is adopted. Article 6 § 5 provides that if the Seimas decides not to grant State recognition to a religious association, its resolution must provide reasons showing that the religious association does not have support in society and/or its teaching and practices contravene the law or public morals. If the request is denied, a new request may be lodged after two years. On 19 September 2023 the Seimas held a debate and a vote on the draft resolution proposing to grant State recognition to the applicant association. After a brief debate, the Seimas voted to reject it. On the same day the Seimas held a debate and a vote on a new draft resolution which proposed not to grant State recognition to the applicant association, on the grounds that its teaching and practices contravene public morals. After a brief debate, the Seimas voted not to adopt the draft resolution and to return it to the Seimas Committee for Human Rights for redrafting. The applicant association complains under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9 that it was treated differently from other religious associations which had been granted State recognition and that the members of the Seimas who voted against the granting of State recognition did not remain neutral and impartial in exercising their regulatory powers – in particular, some of the members of the Seimas based their decision on arguments relating to the Catholic religion. It further complains under Article   13 of the Convention that the domestic law does not provide it with any possibility to appeal against the impugned decisions of the Seimas . QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does Article 46 of the Convention preclude the Court’s examination of the applicant association’s complaints under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9 and under Article 13 of the Convention (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 47, 11   July 2017, and the cases cited therein)? In particular, does the present application concern the execution of the Court’s judgment rendered in the applicant association’s initial case of Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” v.   Lithuania (no.   48329/19, 8 June 2021) or does it contain relevant new information capable of giving rise to a fresh violation of the Convention?   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 Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” , cited above, § 147)?   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 (ibid., § 153)?