Dimitrova v. Bulgaria

ECHR rules Christian woman’s rights violated in 20-year-old case

What’s at Stake

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Summary

In theory, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion can be enjoyed by anyone in a country that has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. But for Petya Dimitrova, she had to wait 20 years before she could finally exercise these rights.

It all began in 1995, when she tried to register a church as part of the Swedish Word of Life group. When Bulgarian authorities denied her request, she organised religious meetings at her home. But Petya wasn’t even allowed to host worship meetings in her own home. In September of that year, police broke into her home without a warrant, confiscated her religious materials, and arrested her for conducting private worship services.

The restrictions on Petya’s freedom didn’t end there. She tried for years to get justice in the Bulgarian courts but was met with dead ends at every turn. Unwilling to allow the injustice to stand, she decided to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Petya filed a complaint with the Court, in which she claimed that the government had violated her freedoms protected by Articles 9 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ADF International represented her at the ECHR together with Bulgarian Allied Attorney, Viktor Kostov.

Relief for Petya finally came in February 2015, when the Court ruled that Bulgarian authorities had violated Petya’s freedom of thought, conscience, and religion when they unjustly arrested her for private worship meetings in her home. The Court also found that the government violated her right to an effective remedy of the situation, which spanned 20 years.

In its judgment, the ECHR stated: “The denial of legal registration to her church was done in a spirit which lacked any semblance of State neutrality. At all stages, the State authorities acted on the basis of discriminatory value judgments rather than evidence. The action of the state authorities failed to respect the need for true religious pluralism, which is inherent in the concept of a democratic society.”

ADF International Senior Counsel Roger Kiska commented: “This ruling sends a clear message to European governments that they must respect the religious freedom of their citizens as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a victory not only for Petya but for all people who value freedom from government coercion and recrimination.”

Our Role in the Case

ADF International represented Petya Dimitrova before the European Court of Human Rights.

Lautsi and Others v. Italy

Europe’s highest human rights court says Christian crosses can stay in Italy’s classrooms

What’s at Stake

The right to display symbols of religious and cultural heritage in public schools

Summary

Offended by the display of crucifixes in her children’s school in Italy, Soile Lautsi asked that they be removed. Her request went directly against long-held Italian cultural and religious traditions.

When the school refused Mrs Lautsi’s request, she appealed to the Regional Administrative Tribunal and eventually to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In an astonishing decision, the Court ruled that the crucifixes in Italy’s public schools had to go.

The Italian Government then appealed the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR (the highest section of the Court). In March 2010, ADF International was given permission to provide legal expertise in the case, submitting arguments on behalf of 33 Members of the European Parliament, representing 11 different nations. ADF International argued that the lower chamber had overridden the cultural sovereignty of Italy and placed ‘freedom from offence’ above the freedom to display Christian symbols.

In a dramatic turnaround, the Grand Chamber reversed the lower Chamber’s ruling by 15 votes to 2 in March 2011. It declared that Italy was within its rights under the Convention to allow the display of crosses in classrooms. In his written opinion in support of Italy, ECHR Judge Bonnello wrote, “The Convention has given this Court the remit to enforce freedom of religion and of conscience, but has not empowered it to bully states into secularism.”

“The Grand Chamber did the right thing here in choosing to reverse the lower chamber’s flawed decision,” said ADF International senior counsel Roger Kiska. “An outside judicial body demanding that a nation must forsake and discontinue how it handles millennia-old traditions is a step towards an authoritarian system that no country anywhere on the globe should welcome.”

Our Role in the Case

ADF International presented the European Court of Human Rights with legal arguments on behalf of 33 Members of the European Parliament from 11 different countries.