CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 novembre 2007

.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. 93 January 2007 Perry v. Latvia (dec.) - 30273/03 Judgment 8.11.2007 [Section III] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Refusal of a residence permit because of allegedly harmful religious activities: admissible   Article 14 Discrimination Restriction on pastoral activity for lack of theological training, applicable solely to foreign nationals: admissible   The applicant, who is a pastor and a national of the United States, set up a religious community which was registered as a church in Latvia, where he lived, having been issued with a temporary residence permit “in connection with his pedagogical activities”. He subsequently received a new temporary permit “for purposes of religious activities”, which authorised him to organise public activities of a religious nature. However, the renewal of his permit was denied on the basis of a law stipulating that a residence permit could not be issued to a person who was “active in a totalitarian or terrorist organisation or one that use[d] violent methods; [who] represent[ed] a danger for national security or public order; or [who was] a member of any secret anti-State or criminal organisation”. However, by virtue of his wife's residence permit he was also issued with a temporary residence permit, but without being authorised to conduct religious activities. He was unsuccessful in a number of appeals to a higher administrative authority in which he argued that his freedom to manifest his religion had been breached. He then appealed to the courts. His claim was upheld by a court, which set aside the impugned decision on account of the lack of evidence of acts that represented a danger for national security or that were incompatible with the operational principles of the Christian church in question. The national authority responsible for issuing permits appealed and the appellate court upheld the arguments of the authority, which had refused to issue a permit on account of the pastor's lack of theological training, one of its sources of information being the Lutheran Academy. The applicant appealed on points of law. The chamber of the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court, which dismissed the applicant's appeal with a finding that there was a potential threat to national security. He lodged a further appeal on points of law which was also dismissed. After a number of appeals, the procurator stated that he had no objection to the granting of a residence permit to the applicant “for purposes of religious activities”. The applicant was thus issued with a new permit but left Latvia and returned to the United States before it expired. Admissible under Articles 9 and 14, the applicant having exhausted all available and appropriate remedies in respect of the measure which had been directed against the exercise of his religious rights. Inadmissible under Article 8 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In such a situation, the administrative-law remedy should in principle have been exhausted.   © 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