Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102
November 2007
Perry v. Latvia - 30273/03
Judgment 8.11.2007 [Section III]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Manifest religion or belief
Ban on exercising the ministry unlawfully imposed on a foreign evangelical pastor when his residence permit was renewed: violation
Facts: In 1997 the applicant, an American national and evangelical pastor, settled in Latvia and founded a religious community there. He lived in Latvia by virtue of temporary residence permits issued “in connection with his pedagogical activities” and “for the purpose of religious activities”. In 2000, however, he was refused a new temporary permit on the strength of a legal provision according to which no residence permit could be issued to a person “actively involved in a totalitarian or terrorist organisation” or belonging to a “secret organisation working against the State”. Shortly thereafter he was issued with a residence permit which no longer authorised him to carry on religious activities in public. He was accordingly obliged to give up his post as pastor of his parish and become an ordinary parishioner. The courts dismissed all appeals by the applicant, citing letters from the Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution alleging that he had “no theological training”, that there was “negative operational information” about him and that his personal acquaintances were “potentially dangerous for the State”. In 2004 he was once again issued with a residence permit “for the purpose of religious activities”.
Law: Withdrawal of the authorisation to organise public activities of a religious nature when renewing a residence permit constituted a typical example of “interference” within the meaning of Article 9. It was true that the applicant had been able to continue to take part in the spiritual life of his parish as an ordinary member. But he was a minister of the faith, and taking part in the religious life of the community in that capacity was a particular manifestation of religion which also fell under the protection of Article 9. It was clear from the facts that there had been no conflict between him and his communities in the United States or in Latvia concerning his role as a pastor. Responsibility for the dispute therefore lay squarely with the Latvian authorities. The impugned decision had been based on a provision of the legislation on aliens that concerned the refusal of residence permits in general, not in connection with a particular activity. Accordingly, while that provision could indeed be a basis for refusing the applicant a residence permit, it could not be used to issue him with a residence permit subject to conditions restricting his rights in Latvia. No provision of the Latvian legislation in force at the material time authorised the Citizenship and Immigration Directorate to use the renewal of a residence permit as a pretext to prohibit a foreign national from engaging in religious activities on Latvian soil. The interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of religion was therefore not “prescribed by law”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.
© 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