European Court of Human Rights delivers judgement in case Mirolubovs and others v. Latvia

On 15 September 2009 the Section of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgement in the case Mirolubovs and others v. Latvia. By six votes to one, the Court recognised that there had occurred a violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) in Latvia. The court did not separately evaluate complaints by the applicants on alleged violations of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. The applicants' complaints regarding alleged violations of Articles 6 (right to fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention and Article 1 (right to property) of Protocol 1 of the Convention were rejected as clearly inadmissible. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and did not satisfy their claims for material damage and for costs and expenses.

The Court rejected an objection by the government of Latvia which stated that the complaints of the applicants should not be admitted for examination, as the applicants had breached the confidentiality of the settlement procedure. The Court considered that letters revealing the conditions of the offered settlement sent by a supporter of the applicants to the Minister of Justice and Prime Minister of Latvia should not be regarded as a violation of the principle of confidentiality, since the objective of the letters was not to make the information public.

The Court recognised that in this case as a result of a decision of 23 August 2002 by the Board of Religious Affairs (the Board) which annulled the registration card of the congregation that the applicants represented, their right to freedom of religion ensured by Article 9 of the Convention had been restricted. The Court examined whether this interference had been prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to achieve a legitimate aim.

It presumed that the interference had been performed on the basis of a law with the legitimate objective prescribed in Clause 2 of Article 9 of the Convention – "protection of public order and the rights of others". The Court further examined whether the actions of the Board restraining the rights of the applicants were "necessary in a democratic society". It recognised that the decision with which the Board interfered in the conflict between both religious congregations was insufficiently founded as the circumstances of the conflict had been taken into account, not considering the facts available to the Board. The Court clearly emphasised that the duty of state to maintain neutrality in religious matters had not been fulfilled. The Court was of the opinion that the Board should have drawn the necessary attention to the fragmentation of old-believers.

Finally, the Court put special emphasis on the fact that Latvia's courts had refused to examine the applicants' complaint on the actions of the Board on the merits, thus refusing to settle the dispute. Taking into account the information mentioned above and the fact that on the basis of the Board's decision, the represented congregation was put out of the premises of its Riga church and could not return there, the Board's intervention in the applicants' rights to freedom of religion had not been proportionate to achieving a legitimate objective.

The applicants had requested the Court to award them EUR 174,125 for material damage, EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage to each applicant (in total EUR 75,000) and EUR 1,142 for costs and expenses.

The dissenting opinion of judge Myjer is added to the judgement.

Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may 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 for the case to be examined in the Grand Chamber. The panel may refer the case to the Grand Chamber or reject the request.

Full text of the Court judgment of 15 September 2009 in French is available on the Court's website:

http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/HUDOC/HUDOC+database/

 

(End of text)