CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 November 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7421/25 PONTIFICIA, REAL Y VENERABLE ESCLAVITUD DEL SANTÍSIMO CRISTO DE LA LAGUNA and DIOCESIS DE SAN CRISTOBAL DE LA LAGUNA against Spain lodged on 28 February 2025 communicated on 7 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is the religious brotherhood Pontificia, Real y Venerable Esclavitud del Santísimo Cristo de la Laguna . It carries out acts of worship, namely religious processions related to the Cristo de la Laguna ‑ a religious image of Jesus Christ. It is also the guardian of the sanctuary where the image is worshipped. The second applicant is the Diocese of San Cristóbal de la Laguna (Canary Islands). According to Article 1 of the statutes of the brotherhood, only male members are admitted. Mrs. T.L.S. requested her admission. Considering the lack of response as a refusal, she lodged a civil action on grounds of infringement of the right of equality and no discrimination by gender and the right of association. The first instance civil court ( Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 20 de Santa Cruz de Tenerife) ruled in her favour, namely on the grounds that the principle of autonomy of the religious communities could not jeopardise the individual right of association unless there was a reasonable justification. In addition, the court, following the case-law of the Constitutional Court, considered that the first applicant held a dominant position within the religious field of the worship of the Cristo de la Laguna as it was only by becoming a member that Mrs. T.L.S. would be able to participate in the worship of the image within a brotherhood. The first applicant lodged an appeal with the Audiencia Provincial de Santa Cruz de Tenerife, that upheld the approach of the first instance court by a judgement of 22 December 2020. Both applicants then lodged an appeal on points of law with the civil chamber of the Supreme Court that overturned the a quo judgement on 23   December 2021. The court recalled that, in accordance with the international agreement concluded in 1979 between Spain and the Holy See, religious brotherhoods were governed by canon law, which provided that religious associations were ruled by their own statutes under the ecclesiastical authority. In addition, Law no. 7/1980 on religious freedom granted full autonomy to registered religious communities in order to set their own operating rules. Contrary to the approach held by the first instance court, the Supreme court considered that the applicant did not hold a dominant position as a brotherhood, taking into account that it did not have the monopoly or exclusivity in the organisation of processions and acts of worship of the Cristo de la Laguna . Therefore, the principle of religious autonomy should prevail over the individual right of association and the State should refrain from compelling a religious community to admit or exclude an individual as a member. Mrs. T.L.S. lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, that on 4   November 2024 concluded into a violation of her right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex. It held that the interference in the claimant’s rights on grounds of protection of religious freedom was not proportionate considering that canon law did not exclude that women could be admitted as members of religious brotherhoods. As far as freedom of association was concerned, the Constitutional court found that the right to admit or exclude an individual was not absolute, in particular considering that the first applicant had a dominant and exclusive position in respect of the worship of the image and a remarkable importance in the social and cultural life of the municipality. Consequently, the principle of autonomy could not prevail over the claimant’s individual right of association. In addition, the court recalled that the brotherhood had received financial support from the State for the restoration of the religious image. The applicants complained under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court’s interference in their rights was not prescribed by law and was contrary to the principle of autonomy of religious communities enshrined in an international treaty and in domestic law. In addition, the applicants submitted that the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim. Ultimately, the applicants argued that the interference was not proportionate as it implied the infringement of their rights and of those of the members of the brotherhood. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants’ refusal to admit an individual as a member of the religious brotherhood constitute a manifestation of their religion within the meaning of Article 9 §   1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   11 (see Svyato ‑ Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine, no.   77703/01, 14   June 2007, §§   146 and 150, and mutatis mutandis Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v.   Russia, no. 72881/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-XI)?   If so, has there been an interference with the applicants´ freedom of religion, within the meaning of those provisions? Was it prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate in terms of Article   9 §   2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the rights of the applicants and any competing rights or interests?