CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 novembre 2008

.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. 113 November 2008 Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany - 58911/00 Judgment 6.11.2008 [Section V] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Alleged denigration by Government of religious movements classified as “sects”: no violation   Facts : The applicants are three associations registered under German law. They are religious or meditation groups belonging to the Osho movement, formerly known as the Shree Rajneesh or Bhagwan movement, which emerged in Germany in the 1960s. In 1979 the German Government launched a campaign to draw attention to the potential dangers of such groups. The Government referred to them as “sects”, “youth sects”, “youth religions” and “psycho sects” and issued warnings that they were “destructive”, “pseudo-religious” and “manipulated their members”. In 1984 the applicant associations brought proceedings before the administrative courts in which they requested that the Government refrain from describing them in such negative terms. Following the dismissal of their claims, they brought a constitutional complaint. In 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the terms “destructive” and “pseudo-religious”, and the allegation that members of the movement were manipulated, infringed the requirement of neutrality in matters of religious and philosophical beliefs, as well as the principle of proportionality. It authorised the remaining terms, considering that the Government could provide the public with information about such associations. Law : The Court assumed that the Government's information campaign had interfered with the applicants' right to manifest their religion or belief. In so far as the Basic Law assigned to the Government the duty of imparting information on subjects of public concern, that interference had been “prescribed by law” and pursued the “legitimate aims” of the protection of public safety and public order and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government's information campaign had aimed to warn citizens of phenomena which had been viewed as disturbing, namely the emergence of new religious movements and their attraction for young people, and to enable people to take care of themselves and not to land themselves or others in difficulties solely on account of lack of knowledge. Such a power of preventive intervention on the State's part was consistent with the Contracting Parties' positive obligations under Article 1 of the Convention. The campaign had not, however, in any way prohibited the applicant associations' freedom to manifest their religion or belief. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court had set certain limits by authorising some statements and not others. The authorised terms (“sects”, “youth sects” and “psycho sects”), even if somewhat pejorative, had been used at the relevant time quite indiscriminately for any kind of non-mainstream religion. Moreover, the Government had refrained from further using the term “sect” in their information campaign following an expert recommendation issued in 1998. Therefore, the Government's statements, as delimited by the Constitutional Court, at least at the time they had been made, had not overstepped what a democratic State might regard as in the public interest. Accordingly, having regard to the margin of appreciation left to the national authorities and their duty to consider, within the limits of their jurisdiction, the interests of society as a whole, the interference with the applicant associations' right to manifest their religion or belief had been justified and had been proportionate to the aim pursued. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © 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