16.06.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

196<br />

<strong>FOGLI</strong> <strong>DI</strong> <strong>LAVORO</strong> <strong>per</strong> <strong>il</strong> <strong>Diritto</strong> <strong>internazionale</strong> 3/2008<br />

A. Admissib<strong>il</strong>ity<br />

69. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly <strong>il</strong>lfounded<br />

within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.<br />

It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.<br />

It must therefore be declared admissible.<br />

B. Merits<br />

1. The remaining applicant associations' submissions<br />

70. The applicant associations maintained that since 1978, by<br />

referring to their movement as a “youth sect”, “youth religion”,<br />

“sect” and “psycho-sect”, the Federal Government had infringed<br />

their duty of neutrality in religious matters. The scope of their<br />

complaint could not be limited to the five examples mentioned<br />

in the domestic proceedings (see paragraphs 9-10, above) and to<br />

the <strong>per</strong>iod of time between 1979 and 1984, but also<br />

encompassed numerous statements made by the Government<br />

before and after this <strong>per</strong>iod of time. They pointed out that the<br />

majority of the publications were not made in reply to requests<br />

submitted by members of parliament, but were issued by the<br />

Government of its own motion.<br />

71. According to the applicant associations, the statements in<br />

issue had had a clearly negative connotation and had been made<br />

in a climate of interference and oppression by the State and the<br />

mainstream churches, and had effectively prevented them from<br />

exercising their right to freedom of religion. According to them,<br />

this campaign had aimed to denigrate the movement's teachings,<br />

to reduce the movement's influence in society, to sever all links<br />

with its members and their religious community and also to<br />

prevent other people from joining the movement. It had thus<br />

directly affected the exercise of the applicant associations' rights<br />

under Article 9.<br />

72. The Government's warning and indoctrination campaign<br />

had had no legal basis. Neither of the constitutional norms<br />

quoted by the Government was sufficiently clear to allow the<br />

infringement of the applicant associations' Convention rights.<br />

They considered that the principle of proportionality did not set<br />

sufficiently clear limits to the exercise of the Government's

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!