Ján Figeľ: Slovakia

Let Us Worship | Ján Figeľ : Slovakia

Ján Figeľ challenged COVID-19 worship bans at Top Court

#LetUsWorship

Topic | Freedom of Religion

Dr. Ján Figeľ is a long-serving EU official and was Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU from 2016 to 2019. He sought to defend freedom of religion in his home country and submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of religious freedom violations stemming from Slovakia’s Covid-19 response. Figel brought a challenge to the Court regarding the legality and necessity of communal worship bans.

In a disappointing decision for religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled Ján Figeľ’s challenge to Slovakia’s sweeping bans on communal worship during the COVID-19 pandemic inadmissible. The Court concluded that it would not rule on the merits of Figeľs challenge because it was not sufficiently clear how Figeľ himself was negatively impacted by the measures taken by the Slovak government and he could therefore not be regarded as “victim”. This comes as a surprise to the applicant who detailed, in his July 2023 response, how he was affected and addressed all the points the court claimed he failed to provide.

The case, co-represented by ADF International and Slovak lawyer Martin Timcsák, had aimed to uphold the right to strong legal protections for religious worship in times of crisis. 

“The international legal framework is very clear in its protection of this right as it benefits everyone – people of faith as well as people of no faith. Fundamental freedoms apply to all, and in times of crisis they must be protected rather than weakened,” said Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel for ADF International.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information

Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

“Religious freedom as a basic human right must be given the highest level of protection. Prohibiting people from doing so is profoundly illiberal and non-democratic. Worship bans are an unfair and disproportionate infringement on the right to religious freedom.”

- Dr. Ján Figeľ

Case Summary

In October 2020, the Slovak Republic banned religious services in the context of cultural, social, and sporting events. Exceptions were made only for baptisms and weddings with up to six people including priests and assistants. The measure was prolonged in February 2021.

The ban on communal worship for all religions was not backed by the Slovakian emergency law. It therefore lacked a clear legal basis, which would be one of the preconditions for a restriction of a basic human right such as freedom of religion.

In fact, both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of the Slovak Republic protect freedom of religion as a fundamental right. This explicitly includes the “freedom … to manifest [one’s] religion or belief in worship.” (Article 9 ECHR)

Restrictions lacked a legal basis

Restrictions of fundamental human rights must at least fulfil three criteria: lawfulness, the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and the necessity of the restriction to achieve the aim.

None of these criteria were fulfilled, argued Figel in his application to the ECtHR. Since the decreed worship ban had no clear legal basis, it was not justified under Slovak emergency law. Furthermore, no specific and detailed research was presented as to whether the ban on religious gatherings would help to reach the pursued aim, nor whether it was needed across the country.

The initiative was backed by a civil society coalition of diverse representatives from the arts, academia, and politics with various faith backgrounds. Bishops and faith leaders also welcomed the case.

“Worship bans are religious freedom violations”

“Religious freedom as a basic human right must be given the highest level of protection. Everyone has the right to live according to their convictions. Prohibiting people from doing so is profoundly illiberal and non-democratic. Worship bans are an unfair and disproportionate infringement on the right to religious freedom, as evidenced by the significantly greater flexibility and openness elsewhere in Europe. National judicial decisions Europe-wide (for example in Germany and France) have shown that worship bans are religious freedom violations,” stated Dr. Ján Figeľ, former Special Envoy for freedom of religion and belief outside the EU.

“It is disingenuous to pit religious freedom against safety when both can work in harmony. Communal worship is an essential part of navigating times of crisis for many people, and can be done safely and prudently, in accordance with necessary and balanced restrictions,” continued Portaru .

“This is a disappointing outcome for people of faith and for religious freedom across Europe. The Court’s decision to dismiss the case is based on a surprising disregard of the information that was provided by the applicant. Unfortunately, due to the procedural rules of the Court, this decision cannot be challenged, despite being unjust and ill-reasoned. Fundamental freedoms should be upheld even in times of crisis, not set aside. The international legal framework is clear: communal worship is not a privilege, but a protected right,”  said Portaru.

Global advocacy continues 

 ADF International continues its global advocacy for religious freedom. It has fought similar worship bans worldwide. The organization has supported successful legal challenges to discriminatory worship bans in Uganda, Ireland, Scotland, and Switzerland. While the Court’s decision in the Figeľ case is a setback, ADF International emphasizes that the fight for religious freedom is far from over. 

“Human rights must remain robust, even under pressure,” concluded Portaru. “The Court’s decision does not mark the end of the discussion. It strengthens our resolve to continue advocating for the rights of all people to live out their faith freely and publicly, including the basic right to worship together.”