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

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
Parties with clearly negative and defamatory connotations, as
submitted by the third party (see paragraph 78, below). This did
not, however, apply in the instant case.
3. The third party's submissions
78. The Helsinki Foundation submitted that the labelling of
religious groups as “sects” or “cults” was widespread in Poland
and other European countries. They considered that the term
“sect” had an unclear meaning and a clearly negative
connotation and should be regarded as defamatory when used by
public officials. Consequently, such labelling should be
considered as indirect interference which could not be justified
as it was not necessary in a democratic society.
4. Assessment by the Court
79. The Court reiterates at the outset that a Church or an
ecclesiastical body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its
adherents the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention
(see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, §
72, ECHR 2000-VII). In the present case the first and second
applicant associations may therefore be considered applicants
for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.
80. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of
individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to
manifest one's religion, alone and in private, or in community
with others, in public and within the circle of those whose faith
one shares. Article 9 lists a number of forms which
manifestation of one's religion or belief may take, namely,
worship, teaching, practice and observance. Furthermore, it
includes in principle the right to try to convince one's neighbour,
for example through “teaching”, failing which, moreover,
“freedom to change [one's] religion or belief”, enshrined in
Article 9, would be likely to remain a dead letter (see, amongst
many authorities, Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May
1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 17, § 31, and Buscarini and Others
v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).
Nevertheless, Article 9 does not protect every act motivated or
inspired by a religion or belief (see, amongst many other
authorities, Kalaç v. Turkey, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports
199