CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juillet 2007

.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. 99 July 2007 Barankevich v. Russia - 10519/03 Judgment 26.7.2007 [Section I] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Minority church prevented from worshipping in public: violation   Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Minority church prevented from worshipping in public: violation   Facts : The applicant is the pastor of the “Christ’s Grace” Church of Evangelical Christians. In September 2002 he was refused permission to hold a service of worship in a park. He brought proceedings against the town council for having violated his right to freedom of religion and assembly. His claim was ultimately dismissed on the ground that his church was different from those of the majority of local residents and therefore a service of worship could have led to discontent among adherents of other religious denominations and could have provoked public disorder. Law : Although the Law on Public Assemblies had been amended in 2004, replacing the requirement of prior authorisation by an obligation to provide notification of an intended assembly, those developments had occurred after the events at issue. At the material time the authorities could ban assemblies deemed to be a threat to public order or the security of citizens. In the instant case the town council had made use of that power and denied permission for the applicant’s assembly. It would be incompatible with the underlying values of the Convention if the exercise of Convention rights by a minority group were made conditional on its being accepted by the majority. Hence the fact that the Evangelical Christian religion was being practised by a minority of the local residents could not justify an interference with the rights of followers of that religion. The religious assembly planned by the applicant had been of a peaceful nature. Even assuming that there had been a threat of violence from a counter-demonstration, the domestic authorities had had at their disposal a wide choice of means which they could have used to facilitate the holding of the assembly without disturbance. It moreover appeared from the wording of the refusal that the applicant’s requests for permission to hold a service of worship in public had already been rejected on many occasions without detailed reasons. Such a comprehensive ban could not be considered justified as being “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation of Article   11 interpreted in the light of Article   9 (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR   6,000 for 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