The ECtHR on Religious Freedom

Here you will find a compilation of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR.

Albania

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Albania.
Andorra

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Andorra.
Armenia

Adyan and Others v Armenia (2017)

Compulsory military service inadmissibly violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if there is no sufficient civilian alternative.

Avanesyan v Armenia (2021)

Art. 9 ECHR is violated because Armenia does not offer residents of Nagorno-Karabakh the opportunity to perform civilian military service.
Austria

Verein Kontakt-Information-Therapie KIT and Siegfried Hagen v Austria (1988) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The refusal to testify as a witness in criminal proceedings is not covered by the freedom of conscience under Art. 9 ECHR, especially if the person concerned is not protected by law from refusing to testify.

Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria (1994)

Banning the film ‘The Council of Love’ because it can provoke justified religious outrage through the blasphemous depiction of central religious figures does not violate the freedom of expression under Art. 10 ECHR, as the ban serves a legitimate aim (the protection of religious feelings) and is proportionate.

Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v Austria (2008)

A ten-year period as a strict criterion for the legal recognition of the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses, which puts them in a worse position than the recognised churches, violates the freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Löffelmann v Austria (2009); Gütl v Austria (2009)

Löffelmann and Gütl, both members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, could not invoke a regulation that allows members of recognised religious communities with certain spiritual functions to be exempted from military service. (Both Löffelmann and Gütl were leaders within the religious community). The court found that this violated freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, in particular because differentiation based solely on the formal status of a religious community is not a sufficient justification for this unequal treatment.

Jehovas Zeugen in Austria v Austria (2012)

The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a registered but not a recognised religious community in Austria, was prohibited from employing foreign clergy due to a ban in the Aliens Employment Act. A corresponding exception to the Aliens Employment Act is provided for recognised religious communities. Among other things, this violates Art. 9 ECHR.

E.S. v Austria (2018)

The criminal conviction of the complainant to a fine because she had indirectly described the Muslim prophet Mohammed as a paedophile in the context of a seminar lecture does not violate the freedom of expression according to Art. 10 ECHR, since the fine serves to protect the religious feelings of third parties.

Polat v Austria (2021)

The withdrawal of parental custody, which means that the father can no longer raise the children religiously (in this case muslim), does not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if the withdrawal is stipulated by law, aims at the best interests of the child and is proportionate.

Föderation der Aleviten Gemeinden in Österreich v Austria (2023)

The refusal to recognise the Alevi communities in Austria as a ‘religious community’ under Austrian law, which would result in financial and institutional advantages, on the grounds that they were not an independent religion but part of Islam and that there were no generally known religious doctrines, violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Kiliç v Austria (2023)

The rejection of a prisoner's request for halal-certified meat does not constitute a violation of religious freedom under Art. 9 ECHR if a sufficient vegetarian alternative is offered.
Azerbaijan

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Azerbaijan.
Belgium

Dakir v Belgium (2017) deviating: the UN Human Rights Committee

The ban on wearing face-covering clothing in public spaces, which is anchored at municipal level, does not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as the ban pursues the public interest of social coexistence (‘vivre ensemble’) and is proportionate.

Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium (2017)

The ban on wearing face-covering clothing in public spaces, which is anchored at municipal level, does not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as the ban pursues the public interest of social coexistence (‘vivre ensemble’) and is proportionate.

Lachiri v Belgium (2018)

The prohibition for civil parties to a court trial to wear a head covering violates Art. 9 ECHR, as public order was not disturbed and no rights of third parties were affected, which could have been a justification for the prohibition.

Anderlecht Christian Assembly of Jehova's Witnesses v Belgium (2022)

The tax discrimination of unrecognised religious communities violates the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.

Executief van de Moslims van Belgie and Others v Belgium (2024)

The non-renewal of the public recognition of the Muslim community in Belgium does not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR. Recognition was not granted due to deficiencies in the internal structure, in particular its lack of transparency.
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hamidovic v Bosnia and Herzegovina (2017)

The ban on wearing a capa for religious reasons as a person summoned to court is an unlawful violation of freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.
Bulgaria

Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria (2000)

Bulgaria violated freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR because the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice had independently entered a religious leader (in this case a mufti) in an official register against the will of the religious community concerned.

Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v Bulgaria (2004)

Das Einsetzen von religiösen Führungsorgane durch ein bulgarisches Gericht, ohne dass dieses ein dringendes gesellschaftliches Bedürfnis darlegen kann, stellt eine Verletzung der Religionsfreiheit gem. Art. 9 EMRK dar.

Genov v Bulgaria (2017)

The non-registration of a religious community because it is too similar in content to an existing one violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR and, in particular, state neutrality.

The Religious Denomination of Jehova's Witnesses in Bulgaria v Bulgaria (2020)

The non-registration of the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses without valid reasons (such as a threat to public order) violates the freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Tonchev and Others v Bulgaria (2022)

The officially supported distribution of leaflets in schools and public institutions, in which the Protestant Church (and in particular the Pentecostal Church) is portrayed as dangerous, violates freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.
Croatia

Savez crkava "Rijec Zivota" and Others v Croatia (2010)

If the state grants certain religious communities financial or institutional resources (e.g. religious education in public schools or pastoral care opportunities), it may not favour any religious community in an unjustified manner. In the present case, the religious association Savez crkava ‘Rijec Zivota’'s freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR was therefore violated.
Cyprus

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Cyprus.
Czech Republic

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning the Czech Republic.
Denmark

Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1979)

The obligation for Danish children to participate in sex education in public schools, although according to the complainants this does not take sufficient account of conservative Christian values, does not violate Article 2 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR (right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their philosophical and religious convictions).
Estonia

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Estonia.
Finland

Tomi Autio v Finland (1991)

The fact that alternative civilian service takes longer than compulsory military service does not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, even if the refusal of military service is on religious grounds.

Kuomo Konttinen v Finland (1996)

The dismissal of an employee of the Finnish state railway because he no longer wanted to work on Fridays after sunset for religious reasons does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR since it was possible for the complainant to terminate the employment relationship if he considered it incompatible with his religious beliefs.

Kustannus ay Vapaa Ajattelija AB and Others v Finland (1996) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The obligation of a publishing house to pay church taxes does not violate Art. 9 ECHR, as legal persons cannot in principle invoke Art. 9 ECHR.

Salonen v Finland (1997)

It is not possible to invoke freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR to give one's child a name that violates the Finnish Names Act.

Jehova's Witnesses v Finland (2023)

The ban on the collection of personal data (e.g. on how much a person is open to talk) does not violate religious freedom under Art. 9 ECHR, as the ban is provided for by law and is proportionate and pursues a legitimate objective (protection of privacy).
France

Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek c France (2000)

The ban on the ritual slaughter of animals does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if the possibility of importing the meat exists, pursues a public interest (namely animal welfare) and is proportionate.

Pichon and Sajous c France (2001)

The obligation for a pharmacist to offer contraceptives does not violate the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.

Phull c France (2005)

Security checks that require the removal of a head covering worn for religious reasons are compatible with freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Mann Singh c France (2008)

There is no violation of freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if the French authorities require a practising Sikh to remove his religiously motivated turban for his driving licence photo. This lies within the margin of appreciation of the state.

Association des Témoins de Jéhova c France (2011)

The retrospective taxation of donations for three years (1993-1996) violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR because this tax burden of three years impairs the collective practice of religion. Taxation is legitimate in principle, but must be based on a clear legal basis and be proportionate, which was not the case here.

S.A.S. c France (2014)

Although the ban on covering the face completely in public without exception violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR (because it makes it impossible to wear a niqab), it is justified because France is pursuing the goal of ‘vivre ensemble’ (i.e. social communication) and the ban is also proportionate.
Georgia

Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehova's Witnesses and Others v Georgia (2007); Bagheluri and Others v Georgia (2014); Tsartsidze and Others v Georgia (2017)

The deliberate omission of protective measures that enabled religiously motivated attacks against members of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1999-2000 and the subsequent failure to conduct a criminal investigation violate, inter alia, Article 9 ECHR.

Georgian Muslim Relations and others v Georgia (2023)

The closure of a mosque, the refusal to grant a building permit for a new mosque and the systematic favouring of the Georgian Orthodox Church in state support for religious infrastructure constitute, among other things, an unjustified violation of Art. 9 ECHR.
Germany

X v Germany (1981)

The ban on scattering ashes on one's own property after death does not violate freedom of religion in the present case because the complainant has not presented a sufficient ‘coherent view on fundamental problems’.

F.P. v Germany (1993) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The dismissal of a career officer from military service because he denied the Holocaust does not constitute a violation of Art. 9 ECHR, as such statements do not constitute ideological convictions within the meaning of Art. 9 ECHR.

Johannische Kirche and Peters v Germany (2001)

The refusal to grant planning permission for a chapel for reasons of environmental protection constitutes a justified interference with freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as the ban is not applied to religious communities in a discriminatory manner and is proportionate.

Fritz Konrad and Others v Germany (2006)

Compulsory education does not violate the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.

Leela Förderkreis E.V.and Others v Germany (2008)

A public, critical assessment of a religious community by German authorities (and in particular by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution) does not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as long as these assessments are factual, justified and proportionate.

Obst v Germany (2010)

On the basis of Art. 9 ECHR, there is no obligation for the state to prevent the dismissal of a clergyman performing public relations work if the religious community concerned is of the opinion that the clergyman has violated his duty of loyalty by disregarding religious commandments.

Schüth v Germany (2013)

The fact that the Catholic Church dismissed an organist who had separated from his wife violates Art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for privacy). This was the result after weighing up the church's autonomy, which arises from Art. 9 ECHR. Mr Schüth's specific activity did not have such a central religious function that the employer's duty of loyalty would justify organising his private life according to the religious rules of the Catholic Church.

Wasmuth v Germany (2011)

The obligation of a spouse to pay a church tax surcharge on his income tax, even though he is not a member of the Catholic Church, but only his wife, does not violate the freedom of religion pursuant to Art. 9 ECHR, as the church tax practice is enshrined in law and proportionate and in the present case resulted from the joint tax assessment.

Siebenhaar v Germany (2011)

On the basis of Art. 9 ECHR, the state is not obliged to prevent the dismissal of a Catholic educator. The reason for the dismissal was that the educator conducted introductory seminars for the Universal Church/Brotherhood of Mankind, but according to her employment contract was subject to the loyalty requirements of the Protestant Church in Baden.

Hizb Ut-Tahrirand Others v Germany (2012)

An Islamist organisation that calls for the violent destruction of Israel and the killing of its inhabitants and is therefore banned by the German authorities cannot invoke Article 9 ECHR.

IX/WABE eV (C-804/18) and MH Müller Handels GmbH/MJ (C-341/19); Preliminary ruling procedure Directive 2000/78/EC of 15 July 2021

The Court ruled that an internal rule in a private company that generally prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of religious beliefs in the workplace does not constitute a violation of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive. However, the internal rule must be justified by the employer's desire to present an image of religious neutrality to the outside world if this is actually a need of the employer - for example, because it meets the expectations of customers. In addition, the rule must be limited to what is strictly necessary for the realisation of this neutral image and must be applied in a general manner and without distinction to all employees.
Greece

Kokkinakis gegen Griechenland (1993 - first finding of a violation of Art. 9 ECHR)

Criminal convictions for missionary activity violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if the exercise of undue pressure and improper influence is not explained carefully enough.

Holy Monasteries v Greece (1994)

A law that allows the state to access the real estate of monasteries indirectly violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR (and the right to practise one's religion) by weakening the economic position of these monasteries.

Efstratiou v Greece (1996); Valsamis v Greece (1996)

The fact that there is no appeal body for parents to appeal against the suspension of their daughter, who has been suspended because she (or her parents) did not want to take part in a parade for religious reasons, violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Manoussakis and Others v Greece (1996)

The obligation for religious communities to have their religious buildings authorised by the Greek Orthodox Church violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Larissis and Others v Greece (1998)

The complainants, three military officers, had attempted to convert both senior and subordinate military personnel to Protestantism, for which they had been convicted under Greek criminal law. The court ruled that the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR was violated in the case of the conviction of the proselytising attempts by military personnel of equal rank, but not in the case of the convictions of the proselytising attempts by subordinates. The hierarchical relationship could give rise to pressure, which in turn legitimises criminal prosecution.

Serif v Greece (1999)

The conviction for usurping of office of a mufti, who acted as a religious leader and wore appropriate clothing, violated freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR in the specific case, as the mufti had not carried out any legally effective acts with sovereign effect.

Thlimmenos gegen Griechenland (2000)

Non-admission as an auditor solely on the basis of a conviction for religiously motivated conscientious objection to military service violates the freedom of religion pursuant to Art. 9 ECHR if the state does not provide a sufficient alternative to military service.

Vergos v Greece (2004)

The refusal to grant authorisation for the construction of a place of worship on private land is a legitimate interference with freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as the prohibition is provided for by planning legislation and serves a legitimate aim (protection of public order).

Alexandridis gegen Griechenland (2008)

The procedure of taking an oath on the Bible in a courtroom violates the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR, even if it is possible to make an alternative declaration without religious reference.

Dimitras and Others v Greece (2010)

Having to disclose one's religious beliefs in the course of a trial because it is standard practice to swear on the gospel as an ‘orthodox Christian’ violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Molla Sali v Greece (2018)

The relatives of Mrs Molla Sali's deceased husband contested his will on the basis of Sharia law, which is traditionally enforced by the Greek state for the Muslim minority in Thrace. The court found a violation of Art. 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) and emphasised that religious norms may not be applied against the will of the parties involved.

Papageorgiou and others v Greece (2019)

The obligation for parents to prove that they are not of Orthodox denomination in order to be able to exempt their children from Orthodox education violates, among other things, freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Stavropoulos and Others v Greece (2020)

The indication on the birth certificate as to whether a child was baptised as a Christian or a civilian violates the negative freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.
Hungary

Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyhaz and Others v Hungary (2014)

The fact that the Mennonite religious community loses its status as a ‘recognised church’ as a result of a new regulation and thereby loses various financial and institutional advantages violates the freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR. Although states are free to define legal criteria for the recognition of religious organisations, these were formulated too opaquely in this case.

Süveges v Hungary (2016)

Refusing to allow a person under house arrest to attend Sunday mass violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR because the refusal was disproportionate.
Iceland

Asatruarfélagid v Iceland (2012)

The co-financing of the Evangelical Lutheran State Church from two state funds, which the religious community Asatruarfélagid is not entitled to, does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as this financing is historically justified and anchored in law (and thus objectively justified).
Ireland

Johnston and Others v Ireland (1986)

The fact that there was no possibility of divorce in Ireland does not violate the ECHR.

Murphy v Ireland (2003)

Not being allowed to show a web advert promoting Christianity on public television does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.
Italy

Lautsi gegen Italien (2009-2011)

Placing a crucifix in a state primary school does not violate children's or parents' freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR as long as there is no element of coercion and no indoctrination occurs. The handling of religious symbols in classrooms falls within the discretionary powers of the member states.

Francesca Sessa v Italy (2012)

The rejection of the timely filed application not to hold a court hearing on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur violates the freedom of religion pursuant to Art. 9 ECHR.
Latvia

Kovalkovs v Latvia (2012)

The refusal of the request for solitary confinement or suitable rooms for the practice of religion does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.
Lichtenstein

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Lichtenstein.
Lithuania

Mockuté gegen Litauen (2018)

The pathologisation of religious beliefs (admission to a psychiatric hospital) without effective judicial control or medical necessity violates, among other things, freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Ancient Baltic Religious Association "Romuva" gegen Litauen (2021)

The Lithuanian parliament's assessment of the content of a religious community as a cultural movement rather than a religious community, which means that it does not achieve the legal status of a ‘recognised religious organisation’ (although it meets the legal requirements), violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Teliatnikov gegen Litauen (2021)

The interpretation of a provision in the statutes of the Jewish religious community, which means that the re-elected chairman of the Jewish Religious Association of Lithuania is not re-registered in the register of associations, violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.
Luxembourg

Zénon Bernard and others v Luxembourg (1993)

The obligation to participate in so-called moral and social studies classes does not constitute a violation of religious freedom under Art. 9 ECHR as long as no religious indoctrination takes place.

Casimiro and Ferreira v Luxembourg (1999)

Although the rejection of the application for permanent exemption from school lessons on Saturday mornings for religious reasons constitutes a restriction of religious freedom pursuant to Art. 9 ECHR, it is justified by compulsory school attendance.
Malta

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Malta.
Monaco

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Monaco.
Montenegro

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Montenegro.
Netherlands

Vereinigung Rechtswinkel Utrecht (V.R.U.) v Netherlands (1986)

Legal counselling does not fall under the protection of personal religious or philosophical convictions under Art. 9 ECHR.

Van Schijndel, Van der Heyden and Leenman v Netherlands (1997)

The conviction for disturbing public order because the persons concerned blocked access to an abortion clinic by kneeling in a corridor does not constitute an interference with freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR.

Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v Netherlands (2012)

The orthodox Calvinist party Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP) was ordered by a court to admit women as full members with the right to stand for election. The ECtHR confirmed the legality of this judgement; although there may have been interference with religious freedom, it was justified by the public interest in protecting equality in political life.

Schilder v Netherlands (2012)

Although the ban on church bells ringing during rest periods constitutes an interference with religious freedom in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR, it is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the peace and quiet at night and the rights of third parties.

Fränklin-Beentjes and Ceflu-Luz da Floresta v Netherlands (2014)

The ban on taking the drink ayahuasca, which contains the hallucinogenic substance DMT, the use of which is prohibited in the Netherlands by the Narcotics Act, does constitute an interference with religious freedom under Article 9 ECHR, although justified.
North Macedonia

Kosteski v Former Yugoslav Republic Macedonia (2006)

In labour law contexts, a certain degree of proof of religious affiliation in order to be able to be exempted from work on religious holidays is compatible with freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pec Patriarchy) v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2017)

The non-registration of a religious community on the grounds that there is a risk of confusion with another religious community constitutes, among other things, a violation of freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.
Norway

Folgerø and Others v Norway (2007)

The need for parents to disclose their religious beliefs in order to be able to exempt their children from a Christian school subject violates the right of parents to educate their children according to their religious beliefs (Art. 2 of the 1st Additional Protocol to the ECHR).

Abdi Ibrahim gegen Norwegen (2021)

The right to respect for family life (Art. 8 ECHR) is violated, among other things, by placing a child in a Christian foster family when the mother wants to bring it up as a Muslim. (Art. 9 ECHR is not examined in isolation, but is included in the assessment of the violation of Art. 8 ECHR).
Poland

Dubowska and Skup v Poland (1997)

The non-conviction for publicly insulting religious symbols of persons who had depicted a Madonna with a gas mask does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if sufficient proceedings have taken place.

Sanievski v Poland (2001)

The obligation to participate in Catholic ceremonies as part of the employment relationship does not violate the freedom of religion pursuant to Art. 9 ECHR, as the sufficient intensity of interference was not achieved in the present case.

Grezlak v Poland (2010)

The labelling in the school report that a pupil did not attend religious instruction, which led to social exclusion and experiences of discrimination, violates freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Jakobski v Poland (2011)

Not offering vegetarian meals in a prison, which results in a Buddhist having to throw away meat contrary to his religious beliefs, violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Rabczewska v Poland (2015)

The sentencing of pop singer Dorota Rabczewska to a fine for publicly insulting religious feelings because she had stated in an interview that she did not believe in the Bible because it was ‘written by people who were either stoned or drunk’ violates freedom of expression under Art. 10 ECHR.
Portugal

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Portugal.
Republic of Moldova

A.O. Falun Dafa and Others v the Republic of Moldova (2021)

The ban on the religious symbol of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, the so-called Falun, which was imposed probably under pressure from China, where Falun Gong is banned, violates the freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR.
Romania

Paroisse Greco-Catholique Sâmbata Bihor v Romania (2010)

The obligation of the Greek Catholic Church to obtain the consent of the Orthodox Church for the return of its church buildings after the lifting of the ban on their existence in 1989 does not independently violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Sindicatul "Pastorul Cel Bun" v Romania (2013)

The non-registration of a trade union for church clergy without obtaining the church's consent does not violate the freedom of association under Art. 11 ECHR.

Constantin-Lucian Spînu v Romania (2022)

The rejection of the application for a pastor for a prisoner who belongs to the Pentecostal Church on the grounds that the Pentecostal Church is not included in the cooperation agreements with the Orthodox Church and that access is only granted to religious representatives of recognised religious communities violates the freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Neagu v Romania (2020)

Disregarding the religious needs of a prisoner who converted to Islam while in prison because he could not prove his religious affiliation with an official letter of confirmation from a recognised religious organisation violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Erlich and Kastro v Romania (2020)

Having the kosher meals prepared at the expense of the detainees who eat the kosher meals does not constitute a violation of religious freedom under Art. 9 ECHR.
Russia

As a result of the Russian Federation's exclusion from the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022, it is no longer a High Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights since 16 September 2022.

Pitkevich v Russia (2001)

The dismissal of a judge because she had used her judicial position to promote religious activities (e.g. by praying during hearings) does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v Russia (2006)

The rejection of the official re-registration of the Moscow branch of the Salvation Army on the grounds that it is a militarily structured foreign organisation and therefore incompatible with the law on religious associations violates, among other things, freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia (2007)

The systematic refusal by the authorities to register the Church of Scientology in Moscow violates freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR, as the repeated and unfounded refusal to register constitutes a de facto ban on religious activity that is not justified by objectively comprehensible or proportionate reasons.

Ismailova v Russia (2007)

Not granting a mother custody of her children because she had joined the Jehovah's Witnesses, among other reasons, does not violate Art. 8 ECHR (respect for family life) and Art. 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination). The court ruled by four votes to three and dispensed with a separate examination of a possible violation of religious freedom in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Kimlya and Others v Russia (2009)

The rejection of the application for state registration as a religious organisation, which would allow the possibility of acting as a legal entity, violates Art. 9 ECHR.

Krupko and Others v Russia (2014)

The dissolution of a church service by the police violates the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.

Biblical Centre of the Chavish Republic v Russia (2014)

The dissolution of the Evangelical-Pentecostal religious community of the "Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic" by the Russian authorities because they had operated a Bible and Sunday school without a state licence violates, among other things, freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR. The consequence of the dissolution was disproportionate and not provided for by law with sufficient clarity.

Dyagilev v Russia (2014)

The rejection of an application for civilian service due to pacifist convictions on the grounds that the seriousness of the conscientious conviction had not been made sufficiently credible does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR. The court ruled by four votes to three.

Preovy v Russia (2020)

The fact that a boy takes part in Orthodox ceremonies as part of his school attendance without his parents being informed or giving their consent violates, among other things, the religious freedom of the boy and his parents under Art. 9 ECHR.

Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness in Russia und Frolov v Russia (2021)

The publication of a brochure by a state authority in which, among other things, the Krishna movement was portrayed as a totalitarian sect, violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Corley and Others v Russia (2021)

The withdrawal of the residence permit and the refusal of entry because the complainants had carried out ‘missionary activities’ without the necessary authorisation violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Taganrog LRO and Others v Russia (2022)

The LRO Taganrog was banned by the Russian authorities due to alleged extremist activities, its premises were confiscated and some of its members were prosecuted. The ECtHR found, among other things, a violation of freedom of religion under Article 9 of the ECHR, because the dissolution of the LRO Taganrog was not based on an actual threat to public order, but on a negative attitude of the state towards the religious community.
San Marino

Buscarini and others gegen San Marino (1999)

The obligation to swear an oath on the Gospel as a member of parliament when taking office, without which the person concerned loses their seat in parliament, violates Art. 9 ECHR.
Serbia

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Serbia.
Slovac Republic

Klein v Slovakia (2006)

The criminal conviction of a journalist for publicly denigrating a religious group who criticised the attitude of an archbishop violates freedom of expression under Art. 10 ECHR, even if the protection of religious feelings is a legitimate objective.
Slovenia

The ECtHR has not yet issued a relevant judgement on freedom of religion concerning Slovenia.
Spain

Iglesia Bautista El Salvador and José Aquilino Ortega Moratilla v Spain (1992) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The fact that only the Catholic Church is exempt from property tax for its religious buildings does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as this does not enshrine a right to tax exemption.

Jiménez Alonso and Jiménez Merino v Spain (2000)

The obligation to take part in factual, objective and non-indoctrinating sex education does not violate the daughter's or parents' freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Fernandez Martinez v Spain (2014)

The fact that a public school does not renew an employment contract with a secular religious teacher, whose position was financed by the diocese of Murcia because he publicly spoke out against celibacy, does not violate the right to privacy under Art. 8 ECHR, among other things because freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR also applies to the Catholic Church.

Pindo Mulla v Spain (2024)

Administering a blood transfusion to a patient against her religiously motivated will violates freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, even if it was an emergency situation.
Sweden

X. and Church of Scientology v Sweden (1979) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

Statements of a religious nature made in the context of profit-orientated product advertising do not fall within the scope of protection of freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Angeleni v Sweden (1986) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The obligation to participate in a religious education programme at a public school, which was designed to be religiously neutral and addressed different world views, does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

B.N. and S.N. v Sweden (1993) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The fact that home schooling by parents is no longer possible in Sweden for the upper school does not violate the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.

Bruno v Sweden (2001)

The obligation to pay a church tax for the fulfilment of non-religious tasks of the church (e.g. the funeral service, the maintenance of old church books, the preservation of historical buildings) does not violate the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.
Switzerland

You can find a comprehensive presentation of Swiss cases on freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR before the ECtHR here.
Turkey

Kalaç v Turkey (1997)

The dismissal of a lawyer in the Turkish Air Force for disciplinary offences and an alleged affinity to a religious sect does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR because military personnel voluntarily submit to special discipline compared to the civil population in the civil workforce.

Institut de Prêtre Français and others v Turkey (1998) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

Depriving a Catholic religious community of its church building violates, among other things, freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, even if the building was also used for commercial activities.

Leyla Sahin v Turkey (2005)

The ban on wearing a headscarf at a university (and thus during lectures, examinations or internships) interferes with freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR. However, the interference was justified in the present case, as the ban was enshrined in law, thus pursuing the public interest of public order and was proportionate, especially in view of the strict secularism in Turkey.

I.A. v Turkey (2005)

The sentencing to imprisonment of a publisher who published a book with provocative statements about Islam and Mohammed is within the discretionary powers of the Turkish courts. There is therefore no violation of freedom of expression under Art. 10 ECHR.

Hasan and Eylem Zengin v Turkey (2007)

The obligation for a daughter to take part in a religious education programme that only addressed Sunni Orthodoxy, but not other faiths such as Alevism, to which the daughter belonged, violated the parents' right to education in accordance with their religious beliefs under Article 2 of the Second Additional Protocol to the ECHR.

Sinan Izik v Turkey (2010)

The obligation to state a religious affiliation on identity documents constitutes a violation of freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR. Furthermore, in the present case, the authorities insisted on the entry ‘Islam’, although the complainant wanted to enter ‘Alevi’ - the authorities rejected this on the grounds that Alevism is not a religion in its own right, but a split-off from Islam. This assessment also violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Ahmet Arslan and Others v Turkey (2010)

The arrest and conviction of the complainants for wearing traditional religious clothing in public violates freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR.

Izzetin Dogan and Others v Turkey (2016)

The Alevi religious community is structurally treated less favourably than other religious communities, as the Alevi religious community is not recognised by the state and is also excluded from financial support. This violates the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.
Ukraine

Poltoratskiy v Ukraine (2003)

The repeated and unjustified refusal of access to a clergyman to provide pastoral counselling to a prisoner who was soon to face the execution of his death sentence violates freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR.

Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v Ukraine (2007)

Denying the Orthodox parish ‘Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya’ re-registration under a new church name and thus preventing its full legal recognition, which meant that the parish could not act as a religious legal entity and therefore could not hold its property, violates the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR.

Religious Community of Jehova's Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih's Ternivsky District v Ukraine (2019)

The refusal of the city council to grant the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses a building permit and the lease of a plot of land violates freedom of religion in accordance with Art. 9 ECHR.

Ilyin and Others v Ukraine (2022)

The non-registration of a misleading name does not violate the freedom of religion according to Art. 9 ECHR.
United Kingdom

Arrowsmith v the United Kingdom (1978) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

Pacifism is considered a world view within the meaning of Art. 9 ECHR and therefore falls within the scope of protection. However, the call for disobedience in the military does not fall under the scope of protection of Art. 9 ECHR, as it is no longer an expression of ideology but aims to undermine military discipline.

Choudhury v the United Kingdom (1991) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

Freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR does not guarantee the right to take criminal action against the statements in Salman Rushdie's book ‘The Satanic Verses’, even if they offend religious feelings.

ISKCON and Others v the United Kingdom (1994) Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights

The fact that the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) was banned from distributing leaflets and books in public areas of Heatrow Airport does not violate freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as the ban was provided for by law, pursued a legitimate aim (the protection of the rights of others and public order) and was proportionate.

Wingrove v the United Kingdom (1996)

Denying a film a screening licence because it was classified as blasphemous, which is a criminal offence in the UK, does not violate freedom of expression under Art. 10 ECHR, as the measure was provided for by law, pursued a legitimate aim (the protection of religious feelings) and was proportionate. The court emphasised the wide discretionary powers of the British courts.

O'Donoghue and Others v the United Kingdom (2010)

The fact that the complainant was not granted a licence for a religious wedding, but that members of the Church of England are not required to obtain this licence, violates, among other things, the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR, as religious minorities are disadvantaged.

Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom (2013)

Private employers may not restrict the religious freedom of their employees without good reason. A balance of interests must be struck in each case. In the present case, the employer's interest in a uniform appearance did not weigh heavily enough to justify the ban on wearing a cross around the neck. On the other hand, a ban for hygienic reasons justifies the interference with freedom of religion, as does the protection of third parties or the interest in a non-discriminatory range of services. (In the case of a refusal on religious grounds to register or care for homosexual couples).

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of United Kingdom v the United Kingdom (2014)

A tax regulation that states that only buildings for public worship are fully exempt from business tax, but only 80 per cent of buildings with restricted access do not violate the freedom of religion under Art. 9 ECHR if they are religiously neutral (i.e. applied equally to all religious communities).