Wasmuth v. Germany (no. 12884/03) - Chamber Judgment, 17 February 2011. The applicant is a German national working as a lawyer and as a lector in a publishing house in Munich. Citing violations of Article 9 as well as Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (discrimination against him as a homosexual), the applicant complained that the requirement to disclose religious non-affiliation information on his wage-tax card is a violation of his religious freedom rights and that there is no legal basis for the public treasury to levy church tax; moreover, he as a homosexual could not be expected to participate in a tax collection system which benefited social groups - namely the churches - whose stated goal was to question and to debase an integral aspect of his personality. In finding no violations of Articles 8 and 9, the Court agreed with the domestic courts in finding that the while the obligation to inform authorities of his non-affiliation with churches or religious societies authorized to levy religious tax constituted an interference with Mr. Wasmuth's right not to indicate his religious convictions, the obligation has a basis in German law that served the legitimate aim of ensuring the right of churches and religious societies to levy taxes. The Court further agreed with the German courts that the interference was proportionate to the aim of the law and that the information requested on the tax card was of limited informative value and did not serve any purpose outside the relation between the taxpayer and his employer or the tax authorities, the end of which was merely to avoid the applicant's having to unduly pay church tax. [The Court further had regard to the fact that there is no European standard in the area of funding churches and religious groups, a question closely tied to each country's history and tradition.] The Court followed a similar reasoning in finding no violation of Article 8. As the Article 14 complaint was not raised before the German Constitutional Court, it was rejected as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Judge Berro-Lefèvre, joined by Judge Kaladjieva, expressed a dissenting opinion.
Siebenhaar v. Germany (no. 18136/02) - Chamber Judgment, 3 February 2011. The applicant, Astrid Siebenhaar, is a German national who lives in Keltern (Germany). Ms Siebenhaar is a Catholic and worked as a childcare assistant in a day nursery run by a Protestant parish in Pforzheim. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she complained that she was dismissed without notice by the Baden Protestant Church on the grounds of her active involvement in a religious community (the Universal Church/Brotherhood of Humanity) whose teachings were deemed to be incompatible with those of the Protestant Church. In a judgment of 3 February 2011 the Court reiterated that the autonomy of religious communities is protected against undue interference by the State under Article 9 read in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). By putting in place a system of labor courts, reviewed by a constitutional court, Germany had complied with its positive obligations in that regard. The Federal Labor Court had found that, given her active commitment to the Universal Church, the applicant could no longer be counted on to respect her employer's ideals. The Fifth Section found this ruling reasonable: "Ms Siebenhaar had been, or should have been, aware from the moment of signing her employment contract that her activities for the Universal Church were incompatible with her work for the Protestant Church." The Court, therefore, found no violation of Article 9 in this case.
Boychev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 77185/01) - Chamber Judgment, 27 January 2011. The applicants are three Bulgarian nationals: Biser Boychev, Mihail Sergeev, and Rumyana Sharova, and an association, the Unification Church, a religious group active in Bulgaria since 1992. Followers of the "Moon" movement, the applicants were attending a meeting of approximately ten people at the home of Ms Sharova when it was interrupted by an identity check and a search by the police. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of disruption of religious services and seizure of religious objects by authorities in 1997, and refusal by the authorities to register their association as a religious denomination. In a judgment of 27 January 2011, the Court found violations of Article 9 and of Article 13 taken together with Article 9 and ordered just satisfaction in the amount of 2,000 EUR each to the three applicants for non-pecuniary damage and 2,500 EUR in total for costs and expenses. Though reiterating that refusal by domestic authorities to grant the status of a legal entity to a religious community was capable of constituting an interference with rights to freedom of association and religion, in view of the fact that the applicants had ultimately applied for and obtained, unconditionally, the registration of their new association, the Court found inadmissible further complaints under Articles 9, 11, and 13.
Gisayev v. Russia (n. 14811/04) - Chamber Judgment, 27 January 2011. The applicant is a Russian national who lives in Grozny, in the Chechen Republic of Russia. He complained of being abducted from his home in October by a group of twenty to thirty well-armed and uniformed masked men wearing "Armed Forces of Russia" armbands and was subsequently detained, during which time he was forced to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes to make certain that he was not a radical Islamic fundamentalist, which was particularly insulting for the applicant, a devout Muslim. He was also intensively questioned concerning his religious beliefs and the Muslim traditions of the Chechen people. The applicant's complaints under Articles 3, 5, and 13 of torture and violations to liberty, security, and effective remedy were accepted by the Court, which held that Russia was to pay the applicant 55,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1,957 in respect of costs and expenses. The Court held that the applicant's alleged breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition) had not been established.
Herrmann v. Germany (no. 9300/07) - Chamber Judgment 20 January 2011. The applicant, Günter Herrmann, is a German national who lives in Stutensee. As the owner of two landholdings in Rhineland-Palatinate which are smaller than 75 hectares, he is automatically a member of the Langsur hunting association under German Federal Hunting Law (Bundesjagdgesetz). He complains about being obliged to tolerate the hunt on his premises even though he is opposed to hunting on moral grounds. He relies on Articles 9 (freedom of thought conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In a judgment of 20 January 2011, the Court held by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 9 in this case.
Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland (no. 16354/06) - Chamber Judgment, 13 January 2011. The applicant association is a Swiss non-profit-making association, the national branch of the Raëlian Movement, an organization based in Geneva and founded in 1976 with the stated aim of making initial contact and developing good relations with extraterrestrials. In 2001 it asked the Neuchâtel police headquarters for permission to carry out a poster campaign. Permission was refused, in particular on the grounds that the campaign would be contrary to public order and public policy; the Raëlian Movement had already been the subject of criminal complaints about certain sexual practices involving minors, and it also promoted cloning and eugenics and advocated a political system based on problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for governing. Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant association complained about the refusal. In a chamber judgment of 13 January 2011, the Court, noted that this was the first time it had examined whether the domestic authorities should allow an association to impart its ideas through a poster campaign using public space made available to it. The Court further noted that though the posters themselves did not contain offensive material, they referred to the association's website, which make easily available to anyone, including children, offensive material and opinions: for example cloning services offered by the Clonaid company, the possible existence of sexually deviant practices involving under-age children and the threats to public order, safety, and morals posed by "geniocracy" and the criticism of contemporary democracies. The Court held, therefore, that the Swiss government was within the margin of appreciation afforded it by the European Convention with regard to public space and had given sufficient reasons for its actions. There is, therefore, no violation of Article 10 in this matter and no necessity to undertake a separate consideration of Article 9.
Chrysostomos II v. Turkey (no. 66611/09) - Admissibility Decision, 4 January 2011. The applicant, Chrysostomos II, Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Cyprus and New Justinian, acting on behalf of the Church as well as the church's parishioners, complained of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about lack of access to and enjoyment of property and places of worship they were forced to abandon during the events in northern Cyprus in 1974. The applicant further complained, under Articles 9 and 11, of being prevented from holding religious services in religious sites in northern Cyprus belonging to the Church. Further complaints under Article 3 asserted that taken with religious and racial discrimination the deprivations amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 14 that the breaches were committed exclusively to the detriment of Greek-Cypriots and/or followers of the Greek-Orthodox Church. In its admissibility decision of 4 January 2011, the court rejected the Article 1 claims, questioning the applicant's standing in the matter and his exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as the Court's own jurisdiction. Finding that no further issues arose in the remaining complaints, the Court unanimously dismissed the application.