This site is dedicated to reporting and commenting upon issues involving freedom of conscience, religion, or belief throughout the member states of the Council of Europe, with particular focus on the work of the European Court of Human Rights and its predecessor tribunal, the European Commission of Human Rights. We are working to make this site the definitive source of information for scholars and others interested in understanding and having some influence upon the work of the Court in this vital area. Since the decisions on the important issues pending before the Court will shape the basic contours of freedom of religion or belief for years to come, not only throughout Europe, but throughout the world as the Court and its opinions become increasingly influential, the kind of work envisioned by, and carried out by, the Strasbourg Consortium is particularly critical.
We welcome you to our site, and encourage you to investigate its possibilities to determine how it may serve you, and how you might contribute to its success.
PLEASE NOTE: This site is independently operated by the staff of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies. It has no official affiliation with the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights.
Genov v. Bulgaria (no 40524/08) [judement in French only] - Fifth Section Judgment 23 March 2017. The applicant is president of the Bulgarian branch of an Indian religious movement which applied for official recognition but was turned down. The government agency which rejected the request claimed that the organization's name was too similar to another group. The applicant asserted before the Court violations under Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 11 (freedom of association). In its decision of 23 March 2017 the Court's Fifth Section considered that refusing to allow the applicant to register the association interfered with the exercise of his Article 9 rights, interpreted in the light of Article 11.
Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v Switzerland (no. 29086/12) [judgment in French only] - Third Section Judgment 10 January 2017. A Muslim husband and wife, Swiss nationals with Turkish nationality, refused to permit their young daughters to attend compulsory mixed swimming... more
Simonyan and "Word of Life" Church v. Armenia (no. 30817/13) - Communicated 26 January 2017. Media accusations labeled the church a "sect" which the church believes was discriminatory and breached the State's duty of impartiality an neutrality in religious matters.
Krishna Consciousness Societies in Russa and Frolov v. Russia (no. 37477/11) - Communicated 23 January 2017. A Krishna Center complains that information disseminated by public authorities in their "Beware of Sects" program incited enmity and hatred on the grounds of religious belief.
Guven v. Turkey (no. 47713/12) - Communicated 18 January 2017. Signed petitions in support of the founder of PKK found in possession of the applicant were held to be propoganda in violation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Complaint claims a violation of freedom of thought and expression.
Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy (no. 25358/12) - Grand Chamber Judgment 24 January 2017. The case concerned the placement in social-service care of a nine-month-old child who had been born in Russia following a gestational surrogacy contract entered into by a couple; it subsequently transpired that they had no biological relationship with the child. In its judgment of 27 January 2015, the Court's Second Section found a violation of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), "in particular that the public-policy considerations underlying Italian authorities’ decisions – finding that the applicants had attempted to circumvent the prohibition in Italy on using surrogacy arrangements and the rules governing international adoption – could not take precedence over the best interests of the child, in spite of the absence of any biological relationship and the short period during which the applicants had cared for him. Reiterating that the removal of a child from the family setting was an extreme measure that could be justified only in the event of immediate danger to that child, the Court considered that, in the present case, the conditions justifying a removal had not been met. However, the Court’s conclusions were not to be understood as obliging the Italian State to return the child to the applicants, as he had undoubtedly developed emotional... more
The COURTalks-disCOURs videos are geared to providing legal professionals, as well as civil society representatives, with an overview of the Court’s jurisprudence in different matters. Made in cooperation with the European HELP programme, these educational videos are subtitled in different languages and are available with a transcript setting out the relevant case-law precedents in each sphere.