FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3 ... - Giurisprudenza

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
substantive content and effects of the right – and not only its
legal classification – under the domestic law of the State
concerned (see König, cited above, § 89).
45. The Court observes that the proceedings at issue
concerned the question whether the remaining applicant
associations could prevent the Government from using certain
terms when publicly referring to their religious groups.
According to the domestic courts' case-law, such a right could
be derived from the right to freedom of religion, as enshrined in
Article 4 §§ 1 and 2 of the Basic Law. It remains to be
determined whether this right could be regarded as a “civil”
right within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
46. The Court considers that possible negative consequences
for the applicant associations' financial situation did not form the
direct subject matter of the present proceedings. However, while
the Court has found on many occasions that the pecuniary nature
of an asserted right brought a dispute within the ambit of Article
6 § 1 (see, for example, Salesi v. Italy, judgment of 26 February
1993, Series A no. 257-E, § 19, and Woś v. Poland,
no. 22860/02, §§ 76, 77, ECHR 2006-...), this does not mean
that disputes of a non-pecuniary nature necessarily fall outside
the scope of that provision. In this context, the Court draws
attention to its established case-law as to the “civil” character of
the right to enjoy a good reputation (see Helmers v. Sweden,
judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, § 27,
and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13
July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 58). Furthermore, the Court
has recently held that the right to use state-owned premises for
religious ceremonies had to be considered as directly decisive
for the respective applicant's “civil rights and obligations”, thus
leading to the applicability of Article 6 (see Tserkva Sela
Sosulivka v. Ukraine, no. 37878/02, § 42, 28 February 2008).
47. The Court does not find it necessary to determine if the
right to freedom of religion generally has to be considered as a
“civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Having regard
to the particular circumstances of the case, in particular its
relation to the applicant associations' good reputation, the Court
considers that the dispute at issue concerned a “civil right”
within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.
189