 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(November 2024) |
X. and Church of Scientology v. Sweden (7805/77) was a case decided by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1979. [1] [2]
| | This article needs additional citations for verification .(November 2024) |
X. and Church of Scientology v. Sweden (7805/77) was a case decided by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1979. [1] [2]
In 1973, the Church of Scientology of Sweden placed an advertisement for an E-meter in its periodical. The Consumer Ombudsman, acting upon complaints, requested the Market Court place an injunction prohibiting the use of certain passages in the advertisement, namely that it was "an invaluable aid to measuring man's mental state and changes in it". The court granted the injunction, and the Church's petition was rejected by the Supreme Court of Sweden.
The commission declared the application inadmissible. Concerning Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), it mentioned that "the Market Court did not prevent the Church from selling the E-meter or even advertising it for sale as such" and stated that "the concept, contained in the first paragraph of Article 9, concerning the manifestation of a belief in practice does not confer protection on statement of purported religious belief which appear as selling 'arguments' in advertisements of a purely commercial nature by a religious group", therefore founding no interference with Church's rights.
Concerning Article 10 (freedom of expression), the Commission found an interference with applicant's rights. However, it found the interference necessary in a democratic society, stating that "the test of 'necessity' in the second paragraph of Article 10 should therefore be a less strict one when applied to restraints imposed on commercial 'ideas'" (compared with 'political' ideas).
The case was also significant, since the Commission recognised in its decision the right of a church to petition on behalf of its members, changing the previous practice.
Freedom of religion or religious liberty, also known as freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the right not to profess any religion or belief or "not to practise a religion".
Freedom of thought is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.
Åke Green is a Swedish Pentecostal Christian pastor who was prosecuted, but acquitted, under Sweden's law against hate speech because of critical opinions on homosexuality in his sermons. The district court found him guilty and sentenced him to one month in prison. The sentence was appealed to the court of appeals (hovrätt). On 11 February 2005, the Göta Court of Appeal overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On 9 March, the Prosecutor-General (Riksåklagaren) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on 29 November also acquitted.
The 2001 About–Picard law [abu pika:r], officially the loi n° 2001-504 du 12 juin 2001 tendant à renforcer la prévention et la répression des mouvements sectaires portant atteinte aux droits de l'homme et aux libertés fondamentales, is French legislation passed by the National Assembly in 2000. The law is targeted at movements deemed to be "cults" that "undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms", as well as "mental manipulation". The law has caused controversy internationally, with some commentators alleging that it infringes on religious freedom while proponents contend that it reinforces religious freedom.
Freedom of religion in Germany is guaranteed by article 4 of the German constitution. This states that "the freedom of religion, conscience and the freedom of confessing one's religious or philosophical beliefs are inviolable. Uninfringed religious practice is guaranteed." In addition, article 3 states that "No one may be prejudiced or favored because of his gender, his descent, his race, his language, his homeland and place of origin, his faith or his religious or political views." Any person or organization can call the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany for free help.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
Freedom of religion in France is guaranteed by the constitutional rights set forth in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
The Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia [2007] ECHR 258 is a European Court of Human Rights case, concerning Article 11 of the convention. In the case the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg condemned Moscow City Government's refusal to consider the Church of Scientology of Moscow for registration as a religious organisation, and as a result found that Russia had violated the rights of the Church of Scientology under Articles 11 when "read in the light of Article 9". Specifically, the Court determined that, in denying consideration of registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities "did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community". The Court also awarded the Church €10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €15,000 for costs and expenses.
Recognition of Scientology and the Church of Scientology varies from country to country with respect to state recognition for religious status, charitable status, or tax exempt status. Decisions are contingent upon the legal constructs of each individual country, and results are not uniform worldwide. For example, the absence of a clear definition for 'religion' or 'religious worship' has resulted in unresolved and uncertain status for Scientology in some countries.
Scientology has operated in Belgium since 1972. In 2003, Scientology opened an international office near the European Union headquarters to lobby for recognition as an official religious group.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
Leyla Şahin v. Turkey was a 2004 European Court of Human Rights case brought against Turkey by a medical student challenging a Turkish law which bans wearing the Islamic headscarf at universities and other educational and state institutions. The Court upheld the Turkish law by 16 votes to 1.
Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that:
Freedom of expression ... is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.
Universelles Leben e.V. v. Germany was a case decided by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1996.
Church of Scientology v. Sweden (8282/78) was a case decided by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1980.
Scientology has been subjected to considerable regulation in Russia including having books prohibited, and branches forcibly closed.
Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008.
Kokkinakis v. Greece is a landmark case of the European Court of Human Rights, decided in 1993 and concerning compatibility of certain sanctions for proselytism with Articles 7 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ruled by a vote of six-to-three that a Jehovah's Witness man's freedom to manifest his religion, protected by Article 9, had been violated by the Greek government. One of the judges wrote that this case was "of particular importance" because it was "the first real case concerning freedom of religion to have come before the European Court since it was set up" in 1959.
S.A.S. v. France was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights which ruled by a vote of fifteen to two that the French ban on face covering did not violate European Convention on Human Rights's (ECHR) provisions on right to privacy or freedom of religion. The two judges in the minority expressed their partly dissenting opinion. The Court was unanimous in dismissing other related claims of the plaintiff, S.A.S.