CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 21 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5142/16 CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES against Armenia lodged on 21 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, the Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a religious organisation registered in Armenia. The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant organisation to construct buildings for religious worship on plots of land it had purchased, due to its inability to obtain an architectural zoning plan. By a judgment of 1   December 2014 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant organisation’s claims against the Yerevan Mayor’s Office and the Mayor of Yerevan whereby it had disputed the refusal to issue an architectural zoning plan and the Mayor’s inaction in that respect. This judgment was partly quashed by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 27   May 2015. In particular, it discontinued the examination of the claim against the Yerevan Mayor’s Office and the Mayor of Yerevan, considering that the refusal to issue an architectural zoning plan and the Mayor’s inaction were not administrative decisions or acts subject to judicial review. At the same time, it upheld the lower court’s refusal to oblige the Yerevan Mayor’s Office to issue the architectural zoning plan required for the construction of its places of worship. On 22 June 2015 the applicant organisation lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation’s decision on 29   July 2015. Relying on Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant organisation complains that the authorities prevented it from building places of worship on its chosen sites, resulting in its inability to hold religious meetings therein. The applicant organisation also complains, under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   12, that it has been the subject of religious discrimination since it has been treated differently from the Armenian Apostolic Church and other religious associations which had been authorised to build their places of worship in Yerevan. Lastly, the applicant organisation complains, in substance, that it was deprived of the right of effective access to a court as a result of the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal dated 27 May 2015. It relies on Article 13 of the Convention in connection with the above complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention (see Vergos v. Greece , no.   65501/01, §§ 36‑43, 24 June 2004; Association for Solidarity with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Turkey , nos. 36915/10 and 8606/13, §§   90 and 91, 24 May 2016; and Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih’s Ternivsky District v. Ukraine, no. 21477/10, §§   50-51, 3 September 2019)? 2.     Was the applicant organisation’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, breached given the Administrative Court of Appeal’s refusal to decide on the merits of its claims against the Yerevan Mayor’s Office and the Mayor of Yerevan (see Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 119, 19 September 2017; and Zubac v. Croatia , no. 40160/12, §§ 76-78, 5 April 2018)? 3.     Has the applicant organisation suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (see Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 92, 31 July 2008; and Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfi v. Turkey , no. 32093/10, § 49, 2 December 2014; and İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no.   62649/10, §§ 155-60, 26 April 2016)? 4.     Did the applicant organisation have an effective domestic remedy, as provided for in Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of its above ‑ mentioned complaints?