EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

19. Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, 27 June 2017. 20. Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019. 21. Vajnai v. Hungary , no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008.

CASE STUDIES

Churches The applicants are religious communities and individuals. The applicant communities originally existed and operated lawfully in a country as churches registered by the competent court in conformity with Act no. IV of 1990 (“the 1990 Church Act”). On 30 December 2011 Parliament enacted Act no. CCVI of 2011 on the right to freedom of conscience and religion and the legal status of churches, denominations and religious communities (“the 2011 Church Act”). It entered into force on 1 January 2012 and was subsequently amended on several occasions, most recently on 1 August and 1 September 2013. Apart from the recognised churches listed in the Appendix to the 2011 Church Act, all other religious communities previously registered as churches lost their status as churches but could continue their activities as associations. If intending to continue as churches, religious communities were required to apply to Parliament for individual recognition as such. In decision no. 6/2013 (III. 1.), the Constitutional Court found certain provisions of the 2011 Church Act to be unconstitutional and annulled them with retrospective effect. Meanwhile, several applicants filed requests to have the Minister responsible register them as churches, but these applications were refused on the ground that – despite the decision of the Constitutional Court – the 2011 Church Act precluded the registrations requested. After the Constitutional Court’s decision, several applicants applied to the National Taxation and Customs Agency (“the NTCA”) seeking to be reissued with the number which is necessary in order to remain entitled to the one per cent of income tax which taxpayers may donate to churches. The NTCA suspended the procedure and invited the applicants to initiate a recognition procedure before Parliament. In the applicants’ submission, this demonstrated further disregard for the Constitutional Court’s decision. Several applicants regained their status as churches pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision. Questions: 1. Is the application admissible? If not, on which grounds? 2. Which provision(s) of the Convention may be complained of? 3. In respect to each provision, please respond to the following questions: 4. Does the issue fall within the scope of one of the substantive articles of the Convention? 5. Was there an “interference” with the right? 6. If so, was the interference based on (authorised or prescribed by) “law”? 7. Did the interference pursue a “legitimate aim”? 8. Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve the legitimate aim in question in the particular case and “proportionate” to that aim, taking into account the “margin of appreciation” accorded to the State in question? 9. Was there a violation of the provision(s) in question?

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

65