NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

or to conduct any general measures. In the similar cases, however, states should expect a comparable ruling by the Court. 2.5.4 Conduction of spiritual activities The right to manifest religion does not mean that religious organisations may conduct spiritual rituals in any place. The former Commission, in its decision in the case of ISKCON and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom , 791 gave an explanation on this point. The applicant, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness Ltd. (‘ISKCON’), alleged, inter alia , a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in view of the fact that the attitude shown by the authorities was unnecessarily harsh and failed to give sufficient weight to the importance of the manor as a place of worship and inspiration for Hindus. In 1983, the ISKCON entered into an agreement with the local authority that the society would not permit more than 1,000 persons to visit the manor on any one day except with the consent of the council. In 1987, the local authority served an enforcement notice on the ISKCON alleging that by using the land for public entertainment in connection with religious festivals it had materially changed the use of the land, which amounted to a breach of planning control. The local authority referred to complaints from the local residents and noticed the number of persons attending the manor had exceeded the 1,000-person limit. The Commission observed that the ISKCON did not allege that the mere existence of planning legislation violated their rights under the Convention, and reiterated that the Convention organs have found on several occasions that contracting states enjoy a wide discretion in regulating planning matters. 792 The Commission clarified that Article 9 of the Convention cannot be used to circumvent existing planning legislation, provided that, in the proceedings under that legislation, adequate weight is given to freedom of religion. Accordingly, the Commission ruled that the interference with the ISKCON’s right to freedom of religion could be regarded as ‘necessary in a democratic society’. Consequently, that part of the application was declared manifestly ill-founded. 793 The Grand Chamber of the Court dealt with the case of Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, 794 which concerned an alleged breach of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the French authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant association an approval necessary for access to slaughterhouses. The ritual slaughter had to be performed in accordance with the ultra-orthodox religious prescriptions of its members under the Torah. Observance of the Torah rules on the eating of meat necessitates special slaughter processes. As far as it is forbidden for Jews to eat any blood whatsoever, animals for slaughter must be killed with a single stroke of a very sharp knife in such a way that the greatest possible quantity of blood will flow. To guarantee consumers that their meat has been slaughtered in accordance with the prescriptions of Jewish law, the

791 ISKCON and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 20490/92, 8 March 1994. 792 Chater v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 11723/85, unpublished. 793 LINDBLOM, 2005, cited above, p. 175. 794 Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek [GC], cited above.

147