Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 172
March 2014
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom - 7552/09
Judgment 4.3.2014 [Section IV]
Article 14
Discrimination
Refusal of full exemption from rates in respect of Mormon temple that was not open to the general public: no violation
Facts – In addition to a number of local chapels and larger chapels known as stake centres, the applicant Church has two temples in the United Kingdom, one of which is in Preston. The temple is considered by members of the Church (Mormons) to be the house of the Lord and one of the holiest places on earth. Ceremonies held there carry profound theological significance and it is a tenet of the Mormon faith that only the most devout members, those who hold a current “recommend”, are entitled to enter.
In 1998 the Preston temple was listed as a building used for charitable purposes and therefore retained a liability to pay only 20% rates, but was refused the full statutory tax exemption reserved under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for places of “public religious worship”. The valuation officer accepted, however, that the stake centre on the same site was a “place of public religious worship” entitled to exemption. In 2001 the applicant applied also to have the temple removed from the rating list, but their claim to exemption was ultimately refused, after the House of Lords held that as a matter of domestic law a place of “public religious worship” had to be one that was open to the general public.
In its application to the European Court, the applicant Church complained that the refusal to grant its Preston temple the exemption from business rates accorded to places of public religious worship amounted to discrimination on religious grounds, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 9.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9: It was unnecessary for the Court to decide whether, in the particular circumstances, the applicant’s complaint about the application to it of the tax exemption legislation fell within the ambit of Article 9, so that Article 14 applied, since the claim of discrimination was in any event unfounded on the merits.
Firstly, on the facts, it was open to doubt whether the refusal to accord an exemption in respect of the applicant Church’s temple in Preston gave rise to any difference of treatment of comparable groups, given that the tax law in question applied in the same way to, and produced the same result in relation to, all religious organisations, including the Church of England in respect of its private chapels. Nor was the Court convinced that the applicant Church was in a significantly different position from other churches because of its doctrine concerning worship in its temples, so as to call for differential treatment involving exemption from the contested tax, since other faiths likewise did not allow access of the public to certain of their places of worship for doctrinal reasons.
Secondly, in the Court’s view, any prejudice caused to the applicant Church by the operation of the tax law was reasonably and objectively justified. The rates exemption was first conferred on places of public religious worship by the Poor Rate Exemption Act 1833 in order to benefit religious buildings which provided a service to the general public and where the church in question “worshipped with open doors”. The House of Lords had held that there was a public benefit in granting the general public access to religious services and that openness in religious practice could dispel suspicions and contradict prejudices in a multi-religious society. The policy of using rates exemptions to promote the public benefit in enjoying access to religious services and buildings could be characterised as one of general social strategy, in respect of which the State authorities had a wide margin of discretion. The consequences of refusing the exemption had not been disproportionate: all the applicant’s places of worship that were open to the public, such as its chapels and stake centres (including the stake centre on the same site in Preston), had the benefit of the full exemption; the temple itself, which was not open to the public, did not attract the full exemption, but did benefit from an 80% reduction in rates in view of its use for charitable purposes; the legislation prompting the contested measure did not go to the legitimacy of Mormon beliefs, but was instead neutral, being the same for all religious groups as regards the manifestation of religious beliefs in private and producing exactly the same negative consequences for the officially established Christian Church in England (the Church of England) as far as private chapels were concerned; lastly, the remaining liability to rates was relatively low in monetary terms. In conclusion, in so far as any difference of treatment between religious groups in comparable situations could be said to have been established, it had a reasonable and objective justification.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© 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