NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

applicant church constituted interference with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 9 § 1 of the Convention. One can find the answer to the third question, concerning the legitimate aim of the interference, in the second part of Article 9 of the Convention. The interests of public safety, protection of public order, health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others are all considered legitimate aims. Examples of legitimate limitations include the intent to protect the health and safety of nurses and patients, 771 the public’s right to the proper administration of justice, in particular, the principle that cases must be heard within a reasonable time, 772 protection of the public in the organisation of the exercise of worship favourable to religious harmony and tolerance 773 and many others. The lawfulness of the interference is seen as complying with the condition of domestic law. In addition, the state has to adhere to the rules and customs under international law. The Convention norms may go farther and introduce stronger protection to Article 34 NGOs. By ratifying this treaty, the states took an obligation to behave in compliance with these human rights standards. Therefore, under certain conditions the Court may also evaluate the quality of the law. The last question in the test relates to the necessity of restrictions of rights under Article 9 of the Convention in a democratic society. It is upon the Court to decide whether a limitation was indeed necessary taking into account all the circumstances of the case at issue. Religious organisations may not expect that they will not be the subject of any criticism. 774 In order to give a more detailed explanation of the principles stated before, let us have a look at the Court’s case-law related to Article 9 of the Convention. Most frequently, Article 34 NGO applicants in these cases are churches 775 and religious associations. 776 The issues raised by these applicants concerned different aspects of the management of an non-governmental organisation, 777 taxes 778 and the conducting of spiritual rituals. 779 Let us start from the first category, namely the rights related to the running of a religious organisation.

Eweida , cited above.

771

772 Francesco Sessa v. Italy , no. 28790/08, 3 April 2012. 773 Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek [GC], cited above. 774 ČAPEK, 2010, cited above, p. 419. 775 Savez crkava “Riječ života”, cited above; Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine , no. 77703/01, 14 June 2007, Eglise Evangélique Missionnaire, cited above. 776 Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France , no. 8916/05, 30 June 2011, Association Cultuelle du Temple Pyramide , cited above ; Association des Chevaliers du Lotus, cited above. 777 E.g. Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria , no. 39023/97, 16 December 2004.

778 E.g. Association des Chevaliers du Lotus, cited above. 779 E.g. Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek [GC], cited above.

143