Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 3 April 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 12739/13
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 15 February 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is a local community of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (“the applicant community”). It is represented before the Court by Mr R Cook, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. Wise, lawyers practising in the United Kingdom, France and Georgia respectively.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant community, may be summarised as follows.
A. Background
Under the current domestic legislation, legal entities and individual persons must obtain permission from the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations (Dini Qurumlarla İş Üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi – hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) to import any religious literature. The applicant community had applied for such permission on several occasions but the Committee permitted imports only in limited quantities.
B. Domestic legal proceedings challenging the Committee’s orders
1. First set of proceedings
On an unspecified date the applicant community lodged a claim against the Committee with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, asking the court to nullify an order of the Committee dated 18 March 2011 concerning restrictions on the importation of religious literature.
On 7 March 2012 the first-instance court rejected the claim, finding no violation. The court held that, under the law, religious organisations were defined as local communities of religious persons who grouped together for joint worship, and which could only operate from a specified place of registration. However, notwithstanding the fact that it had previously been allowed to import religious literature in quantities sufficient for the needs of the registered community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the applicant community had applied repeatedly for permission to import literature in quantities which well exceeded the total number of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Therefore, as it could be assumed that the imported literature was intended for distribution outside of the applicant community’s place of registration, in violation of the law, the Committee had acted within its authority as defined by law.
On an unspecified date the applicant community lodged an appeal against that decision.
On 2 August 2012 the Baku Appeal Court dismissed the applicant community’s appeal. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court calculated the total number of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the community as being around 1,000 persons and stated that the applicants had previously been allowed to import 1,000 pieces of religious literature. The court further found that the applicant community was not an official representative of its members and that nothing had precluded individual members from ordering any literature for personal use; therefore there had been no violation.
On 6 December 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant community and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
2. Second set of proceedings
On an unspecified date the applicant community lodged a claim against the Committee with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, asking the court to nullify two orders of the Committee dated 23 June 2011 and 22 July 2011 concerning restrictions on the importation of religious literature.
On 14 February 2012 the first-instance court rejected the claim, finding no violation as the applicant community had previously been allowed to import religious literature in sufficient quantity for operation.
The first-instance court’s decision was upheld by the Baku Appeal Court and the Supreme Court on 4 July 2012 and 16 October 2012 respectively.
3. Third set of proceedings
On an unspecified date the applicant community lodged a claim against the Committee with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, asking the court to nullify an order of the Committee dated 10 August 2011 and another two orders both dated 18 August 2011 concerning restrictions on the importation of religious literature.
On 23 January 2012 the first-instance court rejected the claim, finding no violation as the applicant community had previously been allowed to import religious literature in sufficient quantity for operation.
The first-instance court’s decision was upheld by the Baku Appeal Court and the Supreme Court on 2 May 2012 and 15 August 2012 respectively.
4. Fourth set of proceedings
On 12 October 2011 the applicant community lodged a claim against the Committee with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, asking the court to nullify orders of the Committee dated 9 and 20 September 2011 concerning restrictions on the importation of religious literature.
On 10 April 2012 the first-instance court rejected the claim, finding that the applicant community had failed to substantiate its claim by specifying which of its interests had been harmed by the restriction on imports imposed by the Committee.
On an unspecified date the applicant community lodged an appeal against that decision.
The first-instance court’s decision was upheld by the Baku Appeal Court and the Supreme Court on 1 November 2012 and 20 February 2013 respectively.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant community complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that the domestic authorities’ refusal to allow the importation of religious literature constituted an unlawful interference with its right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
The applicant community further complains, under Article 14, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, that the failure to allow the importation of religious literature was motivated by discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant community’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant community’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant community suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights on the grounds that it belonged to a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant community been subjected to a difference in treatment with regard to importing religious literature? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim, and did it have reasonable justification?
Leave a Reply