This judgment focuses on a specific manifestation of the right to religious freedom, namely religious propaganda carried out at the individual level. Indeed, the Strasbourg judges found violations of Article 9 ECHR and Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 9, in the following case.

 

The plaintiff, Donald Jay Ossewaarde, is an American citizen of the Baptist Christian faith who, since moving to Russia in 2005, has held regular prayer and Bible study meetings in his home, personally inviting others to attend and promoting the events through leafleting action. Based on recently adopted Russian counterterrorism legislation, however, three police officers showed up at Ossewaarde's home on August 14, 2016 during a Sunday meeting. At the end of his usual Bible reading, the officers took statements from those present and then accompanied the complainant to the local police station, where he was fingerprinted and shown a letter of complaint about the posting of evangelical pamphlets on the bulletin board at the entrance of an apartment building. The police then drew up an administrative infraction report for engaging in illegal missionary activity as a non-Russian citizen; Ossewaarde was then taken directly to court for a brief hearing before being ordered to pay a fine for engaging in missionary activity without having previously notified the authorities of the establishment of a religious group.

 

Having exhausted domestic judicial remedies, Ossewaarde then appealed to the EDU Court, complaining that he was fined for preaching the Baptist faith under the new legislation because he was not a member of any religious association. This, however, should be irrelevant to his ability to exercise his right to propagate his personal religious beliefs. He also filed a complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9 alleging that he was discriminated against because of nationality because, as a U.S. citizen, he was fined more than a Russian citizen.

 

The Court, after determining that it had jurisdiction to hear the case because the events giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred before September 16, 2022, the date Russia ceased to be a Party to the ECHR, reiterated that the right to disseminate information about a particular set of beliefs is protected by Article 9. In particular, when there is no evidence of coercion or undue pressure, the Court has previously affirmed the right to engage in individual evangelism and door-to-door preaching, peacefully recognized. The Court found that the new requirements under Russian legislation, which make it a crime to evangelize in private homes and require prior authorization for missionary activity by a religious group or organization, left insufficient room for those engaged in individual evangelism, such as the plaintiff, but did not justify the need for such unprecedented formalities. The Court is therefore not convinced that the interference with the appellant's right to freedom of religion because of his missionary activities pursued a "pressing social need." Moreover, sanctioning the appellant for his alleged failure to inform the authorities of the establishment of a religious group is "not necessary in a democratic society." Indeed, the freedom to express one's beliefs, including religious beliefs, and to talk about them with others cannot be subject to any act of state approval or administrative registration; this is tantamount to accepting that the state can dictate what a person must believe.

 

The Court went on to note that under the Code of Administrative Offenses, the minimum fine for a foreign national found guilty of an offense of illegal missionary activity is six times higher than for a Russian national, and that foreign nationals are also liable to deportation. The court found no justification for this difference in treatment, which is also difficult to reconcile with Russia's more general legislation on religions, which instead provides that non-citizens legally present in Russia can exercise their right to freedom of religion in the same way that Russian citizens can.

 

In conclusion, the Strasbourg judges therefore concluded a violation of both Article 9 and Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 9, of the Convention and ordered Russia to pay compensation for the harm caused to the applicant.

 

(Comment by Alessandro Negri)