FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 68549/17 JEHOVAS VITTNEN against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 January 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President , Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström , judges ,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 September 2017,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Jehovas vittnen (“Jehovah’s Witnesses” – hereinafter “the applicant community”), is a religious community registered in Sweden by the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency ( Kammarkollegiet ) on 13 March 2000. It was represented before the Court by Mr M. Alnashi and Mr S. Brady, lawyers practising in Stockholm and London.

2. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Lindquist, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

3. In 2007 the applicant community applied to be eligible for State grants to religious communities. In 2009 the Government rejected the request and upheld it upon a request for review. The applicant community appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ), which accepted the appeal, quashed the Government’s decision, and referred the matter back to the Government for a new examination. The Government rejected the applicant community’s request again on two occasions in 2012 and 2016. On each occasion the Supreme Administrative Court accepted an appeal by the applicant community, quashed the Government’s decision, and referred the matter back to the Government for a new examination. The last decision by the Supreme Administrative Court was delivered on 20 February 2017.

4. The applicant community sought compensation before the Chancellor of Justice ( Justitiekanslern ), claiming a violation of its Convention rights. On 20 June 2017 the Chancellor of Justice declined to examine the request since the case was still pending before the Government.

5. In its application to the Court, lodged on 15 September 2017, the applicant community complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of impartiality, submitting that the Government had obtained the opinions of the Commission for Government Support to Religious Communities ( Nämnden för statligt stöd till trossamfund ) prior to its decision-making.

6. It further complained that the refusal to approve its request to be eligible for State grants had constituted an unjustified interference with its rights under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

7. Lastly, the applicant community complained under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had been discriminated against compared to other religious communities, and under Article 13 of the Convention that it had not had an effective remedy to deal with the substance of its alleged Convention violations.

8. On 24 October 2019 the Government granted the applicant community’s request to be eligible for State grants.

9. On 10 July 2020 the applicant community lodged a new request for damages with the Chancellor of Justice, claiming that its rights under Articles 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated.

10. On 21 October 2021 the Chancellor of Justice found that the applicant community’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated. It awarded the applicant community as pecuniary damage 8,250,000 Swedish kronor (SEK – approximately 830,000 euros (EUR)) for the estimated loss of State grants and SEK 200,000 (approximately EUR 20,150) for the costs of the three proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant community was also awarded SEK 60,000 (approximately EUR 6,050) as non-pecuniary damage. As to the remaining complaints, the Chancellor of Justice did not find that there had been any violation of the Convention or its Protocols.

THE LAW

11. The Government referred to its decision granting the applicant community’s request and the decision of the Chancellor of Justice, and argued that the applicant community could no longer claim to be the “victim” of a violation of its rights within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Government further argued that the matter had, in any event, been resolved and requested the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

12. The applicant community contested the Government’s arguments and asked the Court to consider its complaints on the merits.

13. The Court does not consider it necessary to reach a conclusion on the question whether the applicant community can still claim to be the “victim” of a violation of Articles 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since it finds that matter has been resolved for the following reasons.

14. The Court notes that the essence of all of the applicant community’s complaints before the Court was the refusal of its request to be eligible for State grants and the proceedings in connection thereto. The said request was ultimately accepted on 24 October 2019, albeit roughly twelve years after it had been lodged, and the applicant community was registered as eligible for State grants. The Court further notes that the applicant community thereafter turned to the Chancellor of Justice claiming compensation for the alleged violations of its Convention rights. The Chancellor of Justice examined the applicant community’s complaints and found that there had been a violation of its right to a hearing within a reasonable time, no violation of its other rights invoked, and awarded it compensation for the excessive length of the domestic proceedings. In this respect, the Court notes that the applicant community was granted non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage for costs before the domestic courts as well as pecuniary damage for the estimated loss of State grants that it could have received should the proceedings not have been excessive.

15. Having regard to the foregoing, and in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the substance of the applicant community’s complaints has been resolved, and that the complaints have been adequately and sufficiently remedied (see, mutatis mutandis , El Majjaoui & Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 33, 20 December 2007).

16. Consequently, the Court finds that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

17. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

18. Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides that when an application has been struck out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention, the Court has the discretion to award costs. The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, 21 April 2015). Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court in the present case considers it reasonable to award the applicant community EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to it.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;

Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant community, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to it,

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 February 2023.

Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President