CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 janvier 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192 January 2016 Süveges v. Hungary - 50255/12 Judgment 5.1.2016 [Section IV] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Refusal to grant applicant leave from house arrest to attend Mass: no violation Facts – The applicant, who had previously been in custody awaiting trial, was placed under house arrest. In the proceedings before the Court, he alleged, among other things, that the restrictions accompanying his house arrest prevented him from attending Sunday Mass and thus infringed his right under Article 9 of the Convention to manifest his religion. Law – Article 9: By denying the applicant leave from house arrest to attend Mass, the authorities had interfered with his rights under Article   9. The measure was prescribed by law and aimed to ensure his presence throughout the criminal proceedings. It thus pursued a legitimate aim, namely, the protection of public order. A restriction on attending religious ceremonies, including Mass, was a direct consequence of the fact that a less coercive form of deprivation of liberty had been imposed on the applicant. Had he remained in pre-trial detention, rather than being placed under house arrest, he would in all likelihood have been able to take advantage of religious services at his place of detention. The applicant’s request for leave from house arrest was formulated in general terms concerning lengthy periods every Sunday and did not specify the place or the church he intended to attend. That consideration appeared to have been decisive in leading the domestic courts to conclude that the applicant’s request was contrary to the aims of the house arrest. The Court was satisfied that the interference with the applicant’s confessional rights had not been such as to impair the very essence of his rights under Article   9. Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State in that field, the restriction on the applicant’s religious conduct had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by his house arrest. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). The Court also found unanimously a violation of Article 5 §   3 on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. It found unanimously no violation of Article 5 §   4 in respect of the alleged breach of the applicant’s procedural rights and, by six votes to one, no violation of Article   8 on account of the restrictions on the number of the applicant’s visits to his family members. Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes