CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 octobre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 123 October 2009 Kimlya and Others v. Russia - 76836/01 Judgment 1.10.2009 [Section I] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Refusal to register religious groups for failure to demonstrate at least fifteen years’ existence or affiliation to a centralised religious organisation: violation   Facts – The first and second applicants were founder members of branches of the Church of Scientology in Russia. In 1994 the first centre for study of Dianetics (the creed of the Church of Scientology) was registered as a non-governmental organisation. The centre was subsequently refused re-registration because its aims were “religious in nature”. Subsequently, the authorities refused to register as local religious organisations the branches founded by the applicants as they failed to provide evidence confirming at least fifteen years existence in the region. Law – Article 9 interpreted in the light of Article   11: (a)   Applicability – The Court noted at the outset that there was no European consensus on the religious nature of Scientology teachings. Nor was it its role to decide whether a body of beliefs and related practices may be considered a “religion” for the purposes of Article   9. However, since the Russian authorities had been convinced of the religious nature of the branches, the Court concluded that Article   9 was applicable to the case. Moreover, given that religious communities traditionally existed in the form of organised structures and that the applicants’ complaint concerned an alleged restriction on their right to associate freely with fellow believers, Article   9 had to be examined in the light of Article   11.   (b)     Merits – A “religious group” without legal personality could not possess or exercise rights associated with legal-entity status – such as the right to own or rent property, to have a bank account, to hire employees and to take or defend legal proceedings – that were essential for exercising the right to manifest one’s religion. Moreover, under Russian law, only registered “religious organisations” had the right to exercise certain rights such as, for example, to establish places of worship, to hold religious services in places accessible to the public and to produce, obtain and distribute religious literature. Accordingly, the restricted status of religious groups did not allow their members to effectively enjoy their right to freedom of religion and association and there had consequently been an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article   9. The interference was in accordance with domestic law and pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of public order. However, the applicants had been denied registration, not because of any alleged shortcoming on their part, but rather as a result of the automatic operation of the statutory requirement for the religious group to have existed for at least fifteen years. The ground for refusing registration was therefore purely formal and unconnected to the actual functioning of the religious groups concerned. The Government had failed to identify any pressing social need for such a restriction or any relevant and sufficient reason justifying the lengthy waiting period religious groups had to endure prior to obtaining legal personality. The contested restriction only targeted base-level religious communities that could not show their presence in a given region or their affiliation with a centralised religious organisation. It appeared therefore that only newly emerging religious groups which did not form part of a strictly hierarchical church structure were affected by the “fifteen-year rule”. In view of the foregoing, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion and association could not be said to have been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 each to the first and second applicants 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