CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2012

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154 July 2012 Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France (just satisfaction) - 8916/05 Judgment 5.7.2012 [Section V] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Individual measures Respondent State encouraged to waive continuing unlawful automatic taxation of gifts to a religious association   Procedure – By a judgment of 30   June 2011 (see Information Note no.   142 ), the Court had held that the taxation of gifts to the applicant association from 1993 to 1996 amounted to an interference, not prescribed by law, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article   9. It had also reserved the question of the application of Article   41. Law Article 41: EUR 4,590,295 in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to the amount unduly paid by the applicant association; claim for non-pecuniary damage dismissed. Article 46: The tax measure, including penalties and interest for late payment, was still in force. Consequently, a decision to discontinue recovery of those sums would be an appropriate form of reparation which would put an end to the violation found. However, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remained free to choose other means to discharge its legal obligation under Article   46.   © 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