In its judgment of 11 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held Italy responsible for violating Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of discrimination), taken in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The violation stemmed from the prolonged refusal of the Italian authorities to conclude with the Italian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses the agreement (intesa) provided for under Article 8(3) of the Italian Constitution, which is required in order to gain access to certain benefits reserved to religious denominations that have formally regulated their relations with the State through such an agreement.

The case concerned the Italian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which alleged an infringement of its religious freedom, an unjustified interference with its proprietary interests, and discrimination on grounds of religion. In particular, the applicant maintained that it had sought, since 1977, to obtain the agreement envisaged by Article 8(3) of the Italian Constitution, but had been unable to secure a favourable decision from the governmental authorities. Over the years, the competent institutions repeatedly expressed reservations concerning certain aspects of the religious beliefs professed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, particularly their refusal of specific medical treatments. The Congregation had obtained legal personality in 1986, an essential prerequisite for the conclusion of an agreement, supported by a favourable opinion of the Council of State.

Although the conclusion of an agreement is not a prerequisite for the exercise of religious freedom or for the internal organisation of religious communities, it provides access to a number of legal and financial advantages. Among these, particular importance is attached to participation in the “otto per mille” (“eight per thousand”) scheme, through which a portion of personal income tax (IRPEF) revenues is allocated to religious denominations. This mechanism constitutes the principal form of indirect public funding for religious communities in Italy. The applicant argued that its exclusion from this scheme amounted to discrimination in comparison with other religious denominations that had concluded agreements with the State.

The Italian Government disputed these claims, arguing that Article 8 of the Constitution does not confer upon religious denominations a subjective right to conclude an agreement with the State and that the failure to finalize the agreement was justified by concerns relating to the protection of public health and minors. The Government further emphasized that the Congregation already enjoyed numerous rights and prerogatives under Italian law, enabling it to carry out its religious activities freely.

The Court first observed that the dispute did not concern either the applicant’s legal recognition or the direct exercise of religious freedom. Nevertheless, the prolonged refusal to conclude the agreement resulted in a difference in treatment between the Italian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious denominations that had been granted access to this special legal regime. Referring to its established case-law, the Court reiterated that whenever a State creates a particular status conferring specific advantages upon religious communities, it must ensure that the criteria governing access to that status are applied in a non-discriminatory manner.

Particular significance was attached to the Court’s analysis of the “otto per mille” system. The Court noted that, following the abolition of direct public funding for the Catholic Church and the introduction of the current funding mechanism for religious denominations, the “otto per mille” scheme had become the principal means of financial support for religious communities that had concluded an agreement with the State. Consequently, the applicant’s proprietary interest in benefiting from the distribution of these funds was sufficiently important and legally recognised to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Turning to the alleged discrimination, the Court clarified that its task was not to assess the political expediency of concluding an agreement, but rather to determine whether the applicant had been afforded a genuine and non-discriminatory opportunity to obtain the relevant legal status and the benefits attached to it. In this regard, the Court found that the position of the Italian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses was comparable to that of the other religious denominations that had concluded agreements with the Italian State (thirteen between 1984 and 2021). It further observed that the Government had failed to demonstrate the existence of an objective and reasonable justification capable of explaining the difference in treatment suffered by the applicant.

On this basis, the Court concluded that the decades-long inability of the applicant to obtain the agreement provided for under Article 8 of the Constitution amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 9 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The judgment is particularly significant because it reaffirms that, once a system of cooperation and financial support for religious denominations has been established, States are required to apply the relevant access criteria impartially and without discrimination. The decision further confirms that long-standing differences in treatment lacking an objective and reasonable justification may violate the Convention even where they do not directly affect the exercise of religious worship, but rather access to the legal and economic benefits associated with the institutional recognition of religious communities.

 

(Comment by Bernardo Mageste Castelar Campos)