Obst v. Germany, No. 425/03, ECtHR (Fifth Section), 23 September 2010

Employee of a Church, established as a juridical person under public law, which commits adultery. Dismissal without notice. Non-violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Art. 8 ECHR
Art. 9 ECHR
Art. 11 ECHR

1. If Article 8 of the ECHR essentially aims to protect the individual from arbitrary interference by public authorities, it does not only require the State to refrain from such interference: to this negative commitment can be added positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private life. These obligations may require the adoption of measures aimed at respecting private life, including in relationships between individuals. If the boundary between the positive and negative obligations of the State with respect to Article 8 does not lend itself to a precise definition, the applicable principles are nevertheless comparable. In particular, in both cases, one must take into account the correct balance to be achieved between the general interest and the interests of the individual, while the State still enjoys a margin of appreciation.

2. Religious communities traditionally and universally exist in the form of organized structures and, when the organization of such communities is concerned, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention, which protects the life of associations from any unjustified State interference. Indeed, their autonomy, essential for pluralism in a democratic society, is at the heart of the protection granted by Article 9.
(The applicant, employed in the public relations department of a Church with legal personality under public law, had been dismissed without notice for committing acts of adultery. The internal judges recognized that the measure was necessary in order to preserve the credibility of the Church concerned, also in consideration of the nature of the post that the applicant occupied. The Court considers that these findings are not unreasonable. Article 8 of the Convention could not therefore have required the State to offer the applicant a superior protection)