Communicated on 1 September 2020
Published on 21 September 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 68549/17
Jehova’s Witnesses
against Sweden
lodged on 15 September 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a religious community, Jehovah’s Witnesses, which since 2007 have tried to receive State grants offered to all other registered religions. The Government refused the applicant community’s requests for State grants on four different occasions in 2009, 2012 and 2016. Each time the applicant community appealed against the Government decisions to the Supreme Administrative Court which each time accepted their appeals, quashed the Government’s decisions and referred the matter back to the Government for a new decision. The last decision by the Supreme Administrative Court was delivered on 20 February 2017. On 20 June 2017 the Chancellor of Justice refused to award compensation for any violation of the applicant community’s Convention rights since the case was still pending before the Government.
The applicant community complains under Article 6 about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of impartiality as the Commission for Government Support to Religious Communities (Nämnden för statligt stöd till trossamfund) had given a statement to the Government before the decision-making; under Article 13 about the lack of an effective remedy since there is no remedy to make the Government to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court’s decisions; under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about discrimination since more than 40 other religious communities have received State grants but not the applicant community; under Article 9 that the refusal to grant State grants constitutes an interference which was not prescribed by law, nor necessary in a democratic society; and lastly under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the applicant community had the same legitimate expectation to receive State grants as the other legally registered religious communities and that the decisions to refuse those grants were neither lawful nor proportionate.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant community have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the tribunal which dealt with the applicant community’s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant community’s freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant community have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Has the applicant community suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has the applicant community been subjected to a difference in treatment? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?
6. Has there been an interference with the applicant community’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy