CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 novembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   756 08.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PERRY v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Perry v. Latvia (application no. 30273/03).   The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights; that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him 5,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Robert Philip Perry, is an American national who was born in 1957. He is a pastor belonging to Morning Star International, a federation of Christian communities of an evangelical Protestant tendency based in the United States. In 1997 he settled in Latvia and set up a community affiliated to the federation, named Rīta Zvaigzne (“Morning Star”), which was registered as a parish by the Board of Religious Affairs in January 1998.   The applicant was entitled to reside in Latvia on the basis of a temporary residence permit issued “in connection with his educational activities”. In July 1999 the Nationality and Migration Directorate issued him with a new permit valid until 15 July 2000 “for the purposes of religious activities”, which authorised him to organise public activities of a religious nature within Latvian territory.   However, in a decision of July 2000 (no.   5/12-S) the Directorate refused to renew the applicant’s temporary permit, citing section 35(8) of the Aliens (Entry and Residence) Act, which provided that a residence permit could not be issued to a person who was “active in a totalitarian or terrorist organisation” or a member of a “secret anti-State organisation”. A different type of permit which, according to the explanation given by the authorities, did not entitle him to perform religious activities, was issued to him shortly afterwards. He was thus compelled to stand down as pastor of his parish and to become an ordinary member.   Following a number of unsuccessful appeals to the administrative authorities, the applicant applied to the Latvian courts in March 2001 to set aside decision no.   5/12-S. He emphasised that his parish had not received any warning from the Board of Religious Affairs and that he could not understand what threat his religious activities could pose to the country.   The proceedings ended in February 2003, when the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed his application. The courts based their findings on letters from the Constitution Protection Bureau ( Satversmes aizsardzības birojs – “the SAB”), which alleged that the applicant had “no theological training, [not even] a bachelor’s degree” and that there was “negative operational information” about him. The SAB also asserted that the qualifications obtained by the applicant in the United States were not equivalent to the basic Latvian higher-education qualification and that the people with whom he associated were “potentially dangerous for the State”.   In August 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General about the conduct of the SAB. The Prosecutor General replied, in particular, that the SAB had assured him that “at the present time” it had not observed any conduct on the applicant’s part that was illegal or posed a threat to national security and that there were therefore no longer any objections to his being issued with a residence permit “for the purposes of religious activities”. In March 2004 the applicant was finally issued with a residence permit valid until February 2005. However, it appears that he left Latvia in late 2004 and returned to the United States. It also appears that he received a letter from the Latvian Prosecutor General’s Office stating that he no longer posed a threat to the country’s national security.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 August 2003 and declared partly admissible on 18 January 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 9, the applicant complained of unlawful and disproportionate interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of religion, in particular his right to “manifest his religion”. He also alleged that he had been subject to discrimination prohibited by Article 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 9   The Court reiterated that religious freedom implied freedom to “manifest one’s religion” alone and in private, or in community with others, in public and within the circle of those whose faith one shared. It noted that the present case concerned a typical example of “interference” for the purposes of Article 9.   It was clear from the facts of the case that there had been no dispute between the applicant and Morning Star International or Rīta Zvaigzne as to his status as a pastor. The situation complained of had resulted solely from decision no.   5/12-S and was therefore entirely attributable to the Latvian State.   The decision in question had been based on section 35(8) of the Aliens Act, concerning the refusal to issue a residence permit in general rather than in relation to a specific activity. Accordingly, while section 35(8) could indeed serve as a basis for refusing to issue the applicant with a residence permit, it did not provide for any possibility of issuing a permit that also imposed restrictive conditions as to the scope of his rights in Latvia.   The Court observed that no provision of Latvian law in force at the material time had entitled the Nationality and Migration Directorate to use the renewal of a residence permit as a pretext for prohibiting a foreign national from performing religious activities in Latvia.   In addition, although the applicant had been able to continue taking part in the spiritual life of his parish as an ordinary member further to decision no.   5/12-S, the Court reiterated that religious communities existed universally in the form of organised structures and abided by rules which were often seen by followers as being of divine origin. Accordingly, religious ceremonies had sacred value for believers if they were conducted by ministers empowered for that purpose in compliance with such rules.   The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of religion had not been “prescribed by law” and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 9.   Article 14   Having regard to its finding under Article 9, the Court did not consider it necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 14.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.