Religious Courts in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

in Brill Research Perspectives in Law and Religion
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Religious courts have for centuries been part of the European legal landscape. Almost all churches and religious communities have their own judicial systems, often composed of courts or tribunals ordered hierarchically. The aim of this paper is to present cases from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in which a religious court was involved at the stage of domestic proceedings. The twelve cases in question originate from a number of European States, from Italy to Finland and from the UK to Turkey—and in one particular case, Israel. The applicants belonged to many denominations, predominantly Christian. The Court of Human Rights (and before that, the Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned, in the main, with religious courts in terms of compliance with the requirement for a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court has come to various conclusions—for example, it accepted that courts of the Church of England comply with the requirement, it questioned whether the cathedral chapter of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Finland did so, and it indirectly criticized proceedings before the Roman Rota of the Catholic Church. The most recent judgment from September 2017, Nagy v. Hungary, and in particular many associated dissenting opinions, demonstrate that the matter is worthy of study, particularly in the contemporary context of religious freedom. Nevertheless, the cases are so different that it is difficult to discern a coherent line of jurisprudence, and the Court itself hardly ever refers to its own previous judgments in this field.

  • Ahtinen v. Finland appl. 48907/99 judgment of 31.5.2005.

  • British-American Tobacco Company v. The Netherlands appl. 19589/92 judgment of 20.11.1995.

  • Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France appl. 27417/95 judgment of 27.6.2000.

  • D v. France appl. 10180/82 decision of 6.12.1983 manifestly ill-founded.

  • Dudová and Duda v. Czech Republic appl. 40224/98 judgment of 30.1.2001.

  • Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey appl. 14600/05 decision of 5.12.2005.

  • F.R. v Switzerland appl. 37292/97 judgment of 28.6.2001.

  • Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria appl. 30985/96 judgment of 26.10.2000.

  • Helle v. Finland appl. 20772/92 judgment of 19.12.1997.

  • Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) v. Bulgaria appl. 412/03 and 35677/04 judgment of 16.9.2010 final of 21.2.2011.

  • Jakobsson v Sweden appl. 10878/84 judgment of 4.12.1984.

  • Karlsson v Sweden appl. 12356/86 decision of 8.9.1988.

  • Kohn v. Germany appl. 47021/99 decision of 23.3.2000.

  • Lautsi v Italy appl. 30814/06 Chamber: of 3.11.2009 r. judgment of Grand Chamber of 18.3.2011.

  • Lobo Machado v Portugal appl. 15764/89 judgment of 20.2.1996.

  • Mantovanelli v. France appl. 21497/93 judgment of 18.3.1997.

  • Marônek v. Slovakia appl. 32686/96 judgment of 19.4.2001.

  • Mirolubovs v Latvia appl. 798/05 judgment of 15.9.2009.

  • Nagy v. Hungary appl. 56665/2009 judgment of 14.09.2017.

  • Obst v. Germany appl. 425/03 judgment of 23.9.2010 final 23.12.2010.

  • Orthodox Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova appl. 45071/99 judgment of 13.12.2001.

  • Pellegrini v. Italy appl. 30882/96 judgment of 20.7.2001.

  • Reuter v. Germany appl. 39775/04 decision of 6.12.2011.

  • Schüth v Germany appl. 1620/03 judgment of 23.9.2010 final 23.12.2010.

  • Serif v. Greece appl. 38178/97 judgment of 14.12.1999 r. final of 14.3.2000.

  • Skordas v. Greece appl. 48895/99 decision of 15.6.2000.

  • Sramek v. Austria appl. 8790/79 judgment of 22.10.1984.

  • Šupa v. Slovakia appl. 72991/01 judgment of 31.01.2001.

  • Tyler v. UK appl. 21283/93 decision of 5.4.1994.

  • Vermeulen v Belgium appl. 19075/91 judgment of 20.2.1996.

  • Williamson v. UK appl. 27008/95 decision of 17.5.1995.

  • X v. Denmark appl. 7374/76 decision of 8.03.1976.

  • X v Germany appl. 9501/81 decision of 7.12.1981.

  • The Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria appl. 39023/97 judgment of 16.12.2004 final of 16.3.2005.

  • BalodisR.State and Church in Latvia’ in: G. Robbers (ed.) State and Church in the EUBaden-Baden 2005.

  • BerlingoS.CasuscelliG. and PaulyA. (eds.) Code européen droit et religionsMilano 2001.

  • BiałobrzeskiT.Violatio legis w świetle wyroku Najwyższego Trybunału Sygnatury Apostolskiej, c. Castillo Lara z 22.8.1987’ in: Prawo Kanonicznevol. 54no. 3–4 (2011) p. 305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BiggsA.Civil jurisdiction and judgmentsRoutledgeOxford 2015.

  • CiardiA.M.On the Formation of Cathedral Chapters and Cathedral CultureLund 2016.

  • CranmerF.How relevant to the United Kingdom are the “religious” cases of the US Supreme Court?’ in: Ecclesiastical Law Journalvol. 18 (2016).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CusairiR.M. and ZahraaM.Procedure of Issuing Religious Divorce and Resolving Matrimonial Disputes at Shari’ah Councils in the UK’ in: Arab Law Quarterlyvol. 32issue 1 (2018).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DoeN.Christian Law. Contemporary PrinciplesCambridge 2011.

  • DoeN.Law and Religion in Europe A Comparative IntroductionOxford 2011.

  • DraghiciC.The Legitimacy of Family Rights in Strasbourg Case Law: “Living Instrument” or Extinguished SovereigntyOxford and Portland 2017 p. 285.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FinochiaroF.Diritto ecclesiasticoBologna 2003.

  • FriednerL.State and Church in Sweden’ in: G. Robbers (ed.) State and Church in the EUBaden-Baden 2005.

  • ForeyE.État et institions religieuses contribution à l’étude des relations entre ordres juridiquesStrasbourg 2007.

  • KamaliM.H.Shariah Law Question and answersOneworldLondon 2017.

  • KiestraL.R.The impact of the ECHR on private international law: An analysis of Strasbourg and selected national case lawAmsterdam 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KiviorgM.Collective religious autonomy versus individual rights: a challenge for the ECtHR?’ in: Review of Central and East European Law 39 (2014).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KiviorgM.Religion and Law in EstoniaAlphen aan den Rijn 2011 p. 96.

  • LehnhofL.The European Court’s Freedom of Association Cases and the Implications for Islam’ in: W.C. DurhamR. TorfsD. Kirkham and Ch. Scott (eds.) Islam Europe and Emerging Legal IssuesFarnham 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LeighI.Balancing Religious Autonomy and Other Human Rights under the European Convention’ in: Oxford Journal of Law and Religionvol. 1no. 1 (2012) p. 109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MaurerH.Grundprobleme der kirchlichen Gerichtsbarkeit’ in: Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrechtvol. 17Heft 1 p. 48.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCreaR.Art. 10 [of the Charter] Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion’ in: S. PeersT. HerveyJ. Kenner and A. Ward (eds.) The EU Charter of Fundamental RightsOxford and Portland 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McGregorA.Religion, Doctrine and Ecclesiastical Courts’ in: Ecclesiastical Law Journalvol. 13 (2011).

  • MessnerF. (ed.) Dictionnaire droit des religionsParis 2010.

  • MoravčikovaM.Slovaquie’ in: F. Messner (ed.) Dictionnaire droit des religionsParis 2010.

  • MuckelS. (ed.) Der Islam im offentlichen Recht des sekularen VerfassungstaatesD&HBerlin 2007.

  • PanafitL.Juridiction religieuse: Judaïsme’ in: F. Messner (ed.) Dictionnaire Droit des ReligionsParis 2010 p. 430.

  • PapasthatisCh.State and Church in Greece’ in: G. Robbers (ed.). State and Church in the EUBaden-Baden 2005.

  • PeersS.EU Justice and Home Affairs LawOxford 2011.

  • PeersS.HerveyT.KennerJ. and WardA. (eds.) The EU Charter of fundamental rightsOxford and Portland 2014.

  • PintoP.V.I processi nel codice di diritto canonicoVaticano 1993.

  • RengelingH.-W. and SzczekallaP. (eds.) Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union Charta der Grundrechte und Allgemeine RechtsgrundsätzeKöln 2004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RichterE.L.DoveR.W. and KahlW. (eds.) Lehrbuch des katholischen und evangelischen Kirchenrechtsed. 81886 (sic!).

  • RobbersG. (ed.) Church autonomy: a comparative surveyFrankfurt 2001.

  • RobbersG.Church Autonomy in the European Court of Human Rights—Recent developments in Germany’ in Journal of Law and Religionvol. 26no. 1 (2010–2011).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RobbersG. (ed.) State and Church in the EUBaden-Baden 2005.

  • RobbersG. and W. Cole Durham Jr. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and ReligionLeiden and Boston 2016.

  • RoheM.Das islamische Recht. Geschichte und GegenwartC.H. BeckMünchen 2009.

  • RynkowskiM.A religious court as a court of a Member State under Article 267 of the TFUE’ in: R. Potz and W. Wieshaider (eds.) Jurisdictions religieuses et l’EtatGranada 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RynkowskiM.Religious Courts in the of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Ecclesiastical Law Journalvol. 18issue 01 (January 2016) pp. 6266 doi: 10.1017/S0956618X15000848).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RynkowskiM.Sądy wyznaniowe we współczesnym europejskim porządku prawnymWrocław 2013.

  • SandbergR.Law and ReligionCambridge 2014.

  • SandbergR.DouglasG.DoeN.Gilliat-RayS. and KhanA.Britain’s Religious Tribunals: ‘Joint Governance’ in Practice’ in: Journal of Legal Studiesvol. 33no. 2 (2013) pp. 263291 doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqs031.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SettemO.J.Application of the “Fair Hearing” Norm in ECHR Article 6(1) to Civil Proceedings with Special Emphasis on the Balance Between Procedural Safeguards and EfficiencySpringerHeidelberg/New York 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SlotteP.The ministerial exception. Theological and legal perspectives from Finland and Europe’ in: B.G. ScharffsA. Maoz and A. Isaacson Woolley (eds.) Religious Freedom and the Law: Emerging Contexts for Freedom for and from ReligionRoutledgeOxford 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StaniszP.ZawiślakM. and OrdonM. (eds.) Presence of the Cross in Public SpacesCambridge 2016.

  • ŠturmL.State and Church in Slovenia’ in: G. Robbers (ed.) State and Church in the EUBaden-Baden 2005.

  • TorfsR.The presence of the cross in public spaces from the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights’ in: P. StaniszM. Zawiślak and M. Ordon (eds.) Presence of the Cross in Public SpacesCambridge 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WalterCh.Religionsverfassungsrecht in vergleichender und internationaler PerspektiveTübingen 2006.

  • WarninkH. (ed.) Legal position of churches and church autonomyLeuven 2001.

  • WilliamsR.Civil and Religious Law in England—a Religious Perspective’ in: 10 Ecclesiastical Law Journal (2008) p. 262.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 21 21 8
Full Text Views 18 18 2
PDF Downloads 5 5 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0