CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 décembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 125 December 2009 Skugar and Others v. Russia (dec.) - 40010/04 Decision 3.12.2009 [Section I] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Assignment of a tax identification number which the applicants opposed on religious grounds: admissible   Facts – In 1999 the Government adopted regulations governing the register of taxpayers. Information on taxpayers was to be entered in the register on the basis of individual identification numbers allocated to taxpayers. The applicants unsuccessfully requested the tax inspectorate, and subsequently the courts, to have their taxpayers’ numbers cancelled on the grounds that they had been assigned to them without their prior consent and were contrary to their religious beliefs, being “a forerunner of the mark of the Antichrist”. In support of that contention, they referred to Apocalypse, Revelation, 13:15-13:16. Law – Article 9: In determining the applicability of Article   9, the Court was called upon to decide whether the applicants entertained beliefs that could genuinely claim protection as a religious creed or matter of conscience. While it was not the Court’s province to evaluate the legitimacy of religious claims, this did not, nevertheless, prevent it from making factual findings as to whether an applicant’s religious claims were genuine and sincerely held. In the instant case the interpretation of the Bible to which the applicants adhered appeared to be at variance with the position expressed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, in the absence of any indication of insincerity on the part of the applicants, the Court accepted that their rejection of technologically-derived markers for religious reasons could, in principle, qualify for protection under Article   9. The Convention organs had consistently held that general legislation which applied on a neutral basis without any link whatsoever with an applicant’s personal beliefs could not in principle be regarded as an interference with his or her rights under Article   9. The Russian Tax Code stipulated that the tax authorities would assign an individual number to each taxpayer which would be used to identify him or her and to process his or her tax documents. The numbers were formed according to the same pattern and the procedure was neutral and uniform in its application with regard to every taxpayer under Russian jurisdiction, irrespective of his or her nationality, language, religious views or other similar factors. There was no obligation on taxpayers to take any action to obtain a number, since it was automatically created on first contact with the tax authorities. The applicants had objected to the use of the number in their case solely because they believed that its mere existence harmed their spiritual well-being. However, the State, in designing and implementing its internal procedures, could not be required to take into account the way in which individual citizens could interpret them on the basis of their religious beliefs. The alleged incompatibility of the authorities’ internal arrangements with the applicants’ beliefs was merely an incidental effect of generally applicable and neutral legal provisions. Thus, the content of official documents or databases could not be determined by the wishes of the individuals listed therein. It was obvious that the entries in a database had to be established on the same model, both for technical reasons and on account of legal considerations. If every individual could remove or add at whim the information they considered desirable or inappropriate, the uniformity required in administrative matters and its underlying philosophy would be impaired. The method of organisation of the State taxation database involving the use of individual taxpayers’ numbers had not, therefore, amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes