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

FOGLI DI LAVORO per il Diritto internazionale 3/2008
intervention in a domain where the Convention prescribes a duty
to neutrality in the name of preservation of pluralism. A State
duty to impart information on subjects of public concern may be
reasonably interpreted as relevant in the event of urgent and
objective risks such as imminent calamities and the like, which
beliefs as such may hardly be considered to constitute.
Furthermore, formulating such a duty in general terms provides
no clarity or foreseeability as regards “the field it is designed to
cover and the number and status of those to whom it is
addressed” (see, among many other authorities, Hasan and
Chaush v. Bulgaria, § 84, with further references); nor does it
“indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of the discretion
conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its
exercise” (see also Rotaru v. Romania, § 55). In contrast with
these standards of clarity and precision, where a broadly defined
provision authorises or even requires interference in religious
matters it may legitimise the exercise of far-reaching discretion.
Noting that “The ... [impugned] terms, even if they had a
pejorative note, were used ... quite indiscriminately for any kind
of non-mainstream religion”, the majority concluded that the
interference “did not entail overstepping the bounds of what a
democratic State may regard as the public interest” (paragraph
100). In my view this is sufficient to agree that the applicants
endured treatment to which the mainstream religion was not
subjected – a fact for which the respondent Government offered
no justification.
I find a violation of the applicants' rights under Articles 9 and
14 of the Convention.
213