Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244
October 2020
Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.) - 73601/14
Decision 29.9.2020 [Section I]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
Refusal to exempt religious organisation from taxation on regular imports of religious material, not fundamentally undermining its activity: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant organisation appealed unsuccessfully against the tax authorities’ refusal to exempt its regular imports of donated religious literature and other materials from taxation, as well as the manner used to calculate the tax due.
Law – Article 9: The Court had previously found that an economic, financial or fiscal measure could, in certain circumstances, constitute an interference with the exercise of rights secured under Article 9 if that measure were found to have had a real and serious impact on a religious community’s ability to pursue its religious activity (Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France, 8916/05, 30 June 2011, Information Note 142; Eglise Evangélique Missionnaire and Salaûn v. France, 25502/07, 31 January 2013).
In the present case, the impugned measures, including the refusal to apply the tax exemption provided for in domestic legislation, had not had such an effect on the applicant organisation as to fundamentally undermine its ability to develop its religious activity. It had been required to pay 20% and 30% VAT on the customs value of its shipments of periodicals and CDs, and DVDs respectively, whereas the books and Bibles had not been subjected to taxation. In addition, the measures in question had not had any impact on the applicant organisation’s places of worship.
The Court was mindful of the cumulative financial effect of the measures in question over the years, since the applicant organisation imported religious literature regularly. However, it had not been submitted that the applicant organisation could not afford to pay the customs clearance tax imposed on its imports or that it had found itself in such financial hardship that it had been prevented from guaranteeing its adherents’ freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Rather, the organisation could have otherwise used its funds to develop its religious activities. Nor had the organisation been unable to import a sufficient quantity of periodicals, CDs and DVDs, having regard to the total number of its adherents.
The applicant organisation had therefore not been hindered in the exercise of its right to practise its religion as a result of the authorities’ refusal to exempt it from VAT on the donated literature imported by it, and the manner in which the tax had been levied.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
The Court also declared the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded), on the basis that levying VAT on the applicant organisation’s imports of religious literature had not upset the balance between protection of their rights and the public interest in securing the payment of taxes.
(See also Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfi v. Turkey, 32093/10, 20 June 2017; Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy