CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 mai 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. 119 May 2009 Masaev v. Moldova - 6303/05 Judgment 12.5.2009 [Section IV] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Imposition of a fine on a Muslim for practising a religion not recognised by the State by praying with a group of other Muslims in a rented house: violation   Facts : The applicant, a Muslim, was the head of a non-governmental organisation that rented a private house. In 2004 a gathering of Muslims including the applicant was dispersed by the police whe praying on the premises. The applicant was subsequently found guilty of practising a religion not recognised by the State and ordered to pay a fine. His appeal was dismissed without reasons and without inviting him to attend the hearing. Law : Any person manifesting a religion which was not recognised by the domestic law was automatically liable to sanctions in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offences. The Court did not contest the State's power to put in place a requirement for the registration of religious denominations in a manner compatible with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. However, it did not follow, as the Government appeared to argue, that it was compatible with the Convention to sanction individual members of an unregistered religious denomination for praying or otherwise manifesting their religious beliefs. To admit the contrary would amount to the exclusion of minority religious beliefs which were not formally registered with the State, which, in turn, would mean that the State could dictate what a person had to believe. The Court could not agree with such an approach and held that the limitation on the applicant’s right to freedom of religion provided by the Code of Administrative Offences had constituted an interference which had not been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 26 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 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