Information Note on the Court’s case-law 185

May 2015

Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Georgia and Others v. Georgia (dec.) - 72874/01

Decision 21.4.2015 [Section IV]

Article 37

Article 37-1

Striking out applications

State’s unilateral declaration recognising violation of applicants’ rights and awarding compensation: struck out

Facts – The applicants were two religious groups and six individuals. In 2002 t he two applicant groups’ enrolment in the national register of associations was annulled as they could not be classified as a private-law entity under the applicable law then in force. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The domestic law was sub sequently amended so as to allow religious groups to register as legal entities of public law. While the second applicant group was re-registered as an association in 2003, the first applicant did not apply for re-registration.

In 2014, in the course of th e proceedings before the European Court, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration, recognising the violation of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention in respect of the first two applicant religious groups and proposing to pay them EUR 1,500 each in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants refused the proposal as they considered the award offered inadequate.

Law – Article 37 § 1 (c): In previous cases concerning the registration of religious organisations, the Court had found that either by denying registration to various religious groups or by annulling their registration, the authorities had interfered with the applicant organisations’ right to freedom of religion and association, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention read in light of Article 9. In view of that finding, the Court had not considered it necessary to examine the same facts from the standpoint of Article 14 and found Article 10 complaints to be redundant.

In the present case the Government had explicitly accept ed that the annulment of the applicant organisations’ registration was in breach of Articles 9 and 11 and the respondent State had amended its law to fill in the legislative gap concerning the legal status of religious groups. Moreover, having regard to th e Court’s relevant case-law, the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention did not merit a separate examination. Therefore, in view of the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto did not requ ire the Court to continue the examination of the application.

As to the applicants’ objection that the unilateral declaration had been submitted outside the friendly settlement procedure, there were exceptional circumstances justifying the Court, according to Rule 62A § 2 of the Rules of Court, to consider the unilateral declaration in the absence of prior friendly settlement negotiations.

Conclusion : struck out (unanimously).

(See also Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], 26307/95, 6 May 2003, Information Note 53 ; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), 11602/02 , 26 June 2007; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), 28953/03 , 18 September 2007; see also the Factsheet on Freedom of re ligion )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes