CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 octobre 2012

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 156 October 2012 Schilder v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 2158/12 Decision 16.10.2012 [Section III] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Restriction on volume of church bell at night: inadmissible Facts – The applicant was a parish priest who used the church bell at 7.15 each morning to call parishioners to attend religious service. Pursuant to complaints by neighbouring residents that the noise disturbed their rest during the night, the applicant was informed that if he did not reduce the volume of the bell between 11   p.m. and 7.30   a.m. a fine would be imposed. Law – Article 9: The Court was prepared to assume that the measures in question constituted an interference with the right to manifest one’s religion. However, the restriction was “prescribed by law” and pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Further, the restriction in the present case could be considered justified as necessary in a democratic society, as a fair balance was struck between the competing interests, and the applicant was not subjected to a blanket ban on ringing the bells of his parish church but only to a restriction on the volume of the bell during the hours of night. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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