The Right to Religious Autonomy and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights
In this study, the author addresses the problem of the definition and structure of the right to religious autonomy. The object of the study was the content of the two manifestations of this right that the author identified: internal governance and doctrinal autonomy in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of this article is to determine the main areas of protection of the right to religious autonomy of religious associations and the positive experience applicable in the Russian Federation. The author describes the role of the right to religious autonomy, which is an integral part of pluralism in a democratic society and, therefore, acts as a center for protection provided by freedom of conscience. The study is based on the theoretical material of the works of both Russian (P.V. Sergeev, Yu.E. Fedotova, M.O. Shakhov) and foreign (M.E. Chopko, M.F. Moses) researchers. The extensive law enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the regulations of the European Union are also used. The methodological basis of the study is dialectical, comparative legal, formal legal, and other methods. In particular, the use of the dialectical method helped to determine the content of the concept of the right to religious autonomy, to study the dynamics of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding a "balanced approach" to protect the autonomy of the internal management of religious associations. The use of comparative legal and formal legal methods helped to identify correlations between the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and acts adopted within the European Union. The use of the functional method made it possible to investigate the place and role of European institutions and the nature of their governing influence on the provision and protection of the right to religious autonomy to various religious associations, including those representing a religious minority. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that religious autonomy in its two possible manifestations-internal governance and doctrinal autonomy-directly follows from the content of the powers of freedom of conscience. Both of the manifestations are protected by European regulations although such protection cannot be considered as absolute. On the one hand, the right to religious autonomy is an integral part of the external manifestation of religious beliefs; on the other, its universal protection will jeopardize the protection of the rights of others. Nevertheless, in a situation in which the governing influence of European states is limited and the enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights is not entirely consistent, it seems that European institutions are aware of the importance of the right to religious autonomy. Therefore, the authorities resolve problems associated with its implementation pragmatically, trying to balance it with other rights and legitimate interests.
Keywords
freedom of conscience,
freedom of religion,
religious autonomy,
European Court of Human Rights,
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsAuthors
Isaeva Anastasia A. | Tomsk State University | tess@mail2000.ru |
Всего: 1
References
European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 25 May 1993. Kokkinakis v. Greece, Application no. 14307/88. Para. 31. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57827 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Mark E. Chopko, Moses Michael F. Freedom to be a Church: Confronting Challenges to the Right of Church Autonomy // Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy. 2005. Vol. 3, is. 2.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 18.12.2000. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf (дата обраще ния: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 13 December 2001. Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 45701/99. Para. 46. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59985 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Evans C.M., Hood A. Religious Autonomy and Labour Law: A Comparison of the Jurisprudence of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights // Oxford journal of law and religion. 2012. Vol. 1, is. 1.
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 26 October 2000. Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, Application no. 30985/96. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58921 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 26 September 1996. Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, Application no. 18748/91. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58071 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Commission of Human Rights. Judgment of 6 September 1989. Rommelfanger v. The Federal Republic of Germany, Application no. 12241/86. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-1010 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 20 October 2009. Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, Application no. 39128/05. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95247 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 23 September 2010. Obst v. Germany, Application no. 425/03. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-100464 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 20 September 2010. SchUth v. Germany, Application no. 1620/03. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-100469 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 3 February 2011. Siebenhaar v. Germany, Application no. 18136/02. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103249 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31993L0104 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/78/oj (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 9 July 2013. Sindicatul «Pastorul cel Bun» v. Romania, Application no. 2330/09. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122763 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 12 June 2014. Fernandez Martinez v. Spain, Application no. 56030/07. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145068 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Федотова Ю.Е. К вопросу об определении понятия «религия» и сопутствующих ему в российском законодательстве понятий // Язык. Право. Общество : сб. ст. IV Междунар. научн.-практ. конф. (г. Пенза, ПГУ, 11-13 октября 2016 г.) / под ред. О.В. Барабаш, Т.В. Дубровской, А.К. Дятловой, Н.А. Павловой. Пенза : Изд-во ПГУ Пенза, 2016.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Guidelines for legislative reviews of laws affecting religion or belief, CDL-AD(2004)028, 19 July 2004. URL: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD%282004%29028-e (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Commission of Human Rights. Judgment of 10 March 1981. X. v. Germany, Application no. 8741/79. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-73753 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 22 March 1983. Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom, Application nos. 7511/76, 7743/76. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57454 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Commission of Human Rights. Judgment of 14 July 1987. Chappell v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 12587/86. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-481 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Commission of Human Rights. Judgment of 5 May 1979. X and Church of Scientology v. Sweden, Application no. 7805/77. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-73995 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0095 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
European Commission of Human Rights. Judgment of 16 May 1977. Arrowsmith v. United Kingdom, Application no. 7050/75. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-104188 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX:31993L0119:EN:HTML (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 10 November 2005. Leyla §ahin v. Turkey, Application no. 44774/98. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70956 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 15 January 2013. Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom, Application nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10, 36516/10. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
The European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 31February 2003. Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, Application nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60936 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Meerschaut K., Gutwirth S. Legal pluralism and Islam in the scales of the European Court of Human Rights: The limits of categorical balancing // Brems E. Conflicts between fundamental rights. Intersentia, 2008.
European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 6 November 2008. Leela Forderkreis E.V. and Others v. Germany, Application no. 58911/00. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89420 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of 13 July 2012. Mouvement raelien suisse v. Switzerland, Application no. 16354/06. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-112165 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A12012E%2FTXT (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).
Сергеев П.В. Правовое значение внутренних установлений религиозных организаций в регулировании коммерческих отношений // Право и экономика. 2016. № 9. С. 21-26.
Шахов М.О., Пчелинцев А.В., Загребина И.В. Внутренние установления религиозных объединений. М., 2017. С. 53-54.
Православная вера и таинство крещения. URL: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=9847 (дата обращения: 01.02.2020).