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

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
discretionary power where interferences with the freedom of
religion derived directly from other constitutional rights. The
importance of the right to freedom of religion required a strict
adherence to legal principles and at least some procedural rules
concerning the involvement of the religious communities in the
process of defining the scope of the State powers and safeguards
against abuse of authority. In the applicant associations' view the
authorities had failed in their duty to enact an adequate legal
framework in this respect.
73. The applicant associations further maintained that the
interference with their Convention rights was not justified by
any of the legitimate aims set out in Article 9 § 2 of the
Convention. There could never be a justification for judging
religious groups' beliefs as contrasted to their actions. The
Government had failed to submit any concrete facts which
would allow the Court to verify the assumption that their
movement was in any way dangerous or that urgent social needs
necessitated the actions in question. Their movement could not
be criticised for any activity which was illegal or contrary to
public order and the existing legislation. Accordingly, their
treatment by the political authorities had been persecutory and
unjustified, and had not been necessary in a democratic society.
2. The Government's submissions
74. The Government accepted that the applicant associations
could refer to their right of religious freedom under Article 9 § 1
of the Convention. They considered, however, that the
statements under dispute did not interfere with this right, as they
were neither aimed at restricting the applicant associations' right
to exercise their religion undisturbed nor did they directly bring
about such an effect. Any possible indirect factual impact on the
applicant associations' right under Article 9 did not amount to an
interference with that right, given that the Government observed
their obligation to neutrality in religious matters.
75. Even assuming an interference with Article 9 § 1, the
Government considered this to be justified under § 2 of that
same Article, as the contested statements remained within the
margin of appreciation accorded to the Contracting States, that
is, they were in accordance with the law and necessary in a
democratic society. Based on its constitutionally assigned task
197