Religion, principle of freedom of religion, European Convention on Human Rights
Freedom of religion or, more broadly, of conviction, because it affects everyone in the depths of him, is abundant authority in the decisions of the Strasbourg court. Indeed, whether the problem of the manifestation of religion, especially in areas subject to public authority, or the problem of the recognition of this freedom to the various religious movements, such as sects, religious freedom remains a thorny problem often complex and must constantly be reconciled with conflicting principles. Freedom of religion, because it sometimes seems to contradict some fundamental European values, remains one of the freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights particularly difficult to implement.
Therefore, how the Strasbourg jurisprudence evolves face the influences of different conceptions of freedom of religion is essential.
So today, religious freedom is a freedom enshrined in the clear European Convention on Human Rights, while being particularly framed (I). In addition, there are abuses inherent in the proclamation of the freedom of religion: it is draconian excesses but also sectarian (II).
[...] But above all, the freedom to change religion involves a right to "attack" the religion of others, ie the authorization of proselytizing. This is the Kokkinakis judgment of 25 May 1993. In this case, a man accompanied by his wife gets access to the home of a resident. When the husband of the latter amounts, moreover cantor of an Orthodox church in the city, means that visitors are Jehovah's Witnesses with the doctrine of their faith, he warned the police. [...]
[...] Efstratiou against Greece of 11 April 1996: religious beliefs, Jehovah's witnesses, teaching. Pentidis, Katharios and Stagopoulos against Greece on 27 February 1996: Jehovah's witnesses, use of a private room as a place of worship and religious celebrations. Valsamis against Greece on 6 July 1995: religious beliefs, Jehovah's witnesses, teaching. Manoussakis against Greece of 25 May 1995: Jehovah's Witnesses, proselytizing, use of a private room as a place of worship and religious celebrations. Kokkinakis against Greece on 3 December 1991: proselytizing Jehovah's witnesses. [...]
[...] We need the right claimed is a hand "necessary" in the light of the practice of religion. It is therefore sought specifically whether it is so. For example, a Buddhist prisoner alleged that the communication with other Buddhists was a necessary practice of his religious practice. The commission said it right to publish is not a necessary part of the practice. Similarly, in the case of a Muslim teacher who wanted to go to the mosque on Friday at the time of classes, the Commission has requested, among other if this was a necessary practice. [...]
[...] The right to divorce was first invoked in the name of freedom of religion. In this case, two individuals complained about the non- recognition of divorce in Ireland. One of them invoked the freedom to dissolve her marriage to remarry, but the application was inadmissible. Similarly, the right not to divorce was invoked but again the request was denied, even if the reasons are somewhat strange .From addition, freedom of religion can be invoked in employment: the obligation accept a job that would conflict with the beliefs or religious can be allowed. [...]
[...] ii) There is also the religious components of the freedom of expression of religion. This is the first requirement, and thus proof of religion. It is therefore imperative that the person has a religion but also that the states and eventually proves: Simple claims are not enough. It is required a "form generally recognized." For example, in its decision of 4 October 1977, X . c / United Kingdom, the Commission found about a prisoner president of a company and occult saying follower of the Wiccan religion, that n had put forward any fact to establish the existence of this religion. [...]
using our reader.