Critical Review of Resent Cases Raised Before European Court Of Justice and European Court Of Human Rights Regarding the Right to Freedom of Religion within the Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant professor of Law Department, Alzahra University Tehran- Iran

Abstract

Although ECHR and first protocol contains a provision concerning right to freedom of religion and freedom to practicereligion as well right of parents to choose their children’s religious education, permission of derogating from their obligations result in providing margin of appreciation by contracting states in order to interpret and apply mentioned rights. It may not be going too far to say that one does not understand the margin of appreciation unless one obtains a proper appreciation of widespread application of the principle of proportionality. The interaction between the principle of proportionality and margin of appreciation is of significance in securing the right to freedom of religion by contracting states. This article shall examine the status of freedom of religion and its scope in European system. In the light of resent cases, Having defined how European courts will ascertain scope and extent of margin of appreciation, we shall deal with this question ofhow d European courts synthesize a dialectical relationship between the general interest of society and the interests of individuals? It seems that the Court, in many cases, seeks to synthesize the principle of proportionality and establish a fair balance between  ensuring the individual rights on the one hand and the society's necessities as well as the intended purpose of state on the other.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects


Hossein nejad, Hossein gholi, A look at the European Court of Human Rights, Legal magazine, No 22, 1377
Rahaei, Saeid, Religious Freedom from the Point of View of International Law by Looking at Islamic Approach, Qom, Mofid University, 1389
International Human Rights Documentation Collection, Amirarjmand, Ardeshir, 7/5000
Volume II, Shahid Beheshti University, 1381.
Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyyed Mohammad, Human rights in the contemporary world, Volume I, Tehran, Institute for Legal Studies and Research of Knowledge City,1388.
-Mowbary, A, the Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights,  Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon, 2004. 
- Hans, Kung, Christianity and the world religion: paths of dialogue with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, Glasgow, 1985
-  Rehman, Javaid and C.Breau, Susan, Religion, Human Rights and International Law, a critical examinations of Islamic State practice, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 2007.
-M. Novak and T. vospernik, permissible restriction on freedom of religion, Seminar on freedom of religion or belief in the OSCE region: challengs to law and practice (Ministry of foreign Affairs, the Netherlans, The Hague, 2001.
  -Dijk, p.van and Hoof G.J.H Van, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Third Edition, Kluwer Law International,1998.
-Alston, Philip, the EU and Human Rights, Oxford university press, 1999.
- Knights, Samantha, Freedom of Religion, Minorities and the law, United States, New York, Oxford university press, 2007, 1th Ed, p.39
- Lerner, Natan, Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden. Boston, 2006.
- Evans, Carolyn, Freedom of Religion under the European convention on Human Rights , United State, Oxford University press, 2001, 1th Ed.
-Reid Karen, A Practitioners, Guide to The European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd Edition, Sweet and Maxwell, 2004.
G.J.H. Van Hoof,  Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Kluwer Law International, Hegue, London, Boston, 3rd Edition, 1998,
- McBride, J, Proportionality and the European Convention on Human Rights, the Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1999.
-Christoffersen, Jonas, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, 2009
- Schwarze, J, European Administrative Law, Sweet and Maxwell and Office, London, 1992.
- W.Janis, Mark, S. KAY, Richard, EuropeAN Human Rights Law: Text and materials, United States, New York, Oxford University, 2008, 3th Ed.
Articles:
- Burca, Grainne de “The Road Not Taken: The European Union as a Global Human Rights Actor”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.105, No.4, October 2011.
-Geer, Steven, “Balancing and the European Court of Human Rights: A Contribution to the Habermas- Alexy Debate”, Cambridge Law Journal, Vol.63, No.2, 2004.
 - Lord Lester of Herne Hill, “Universality Versas Subsidarity: A Reply” European Human Rights Law Review, No.1, 1998.
Documents: 
 - General Comment NO 22, ICCPR Article 18, Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/Rev/Add. Adopted on 20 July 1993.
-Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment employment and occupation COJ 2000 L 303, P.16
 - Judgement Achbita V G4S secure sdutions, C-157/15, Court of justice of the European Union Press Release, No 30/17, Luxambourg, 14 March 2017
- Judgement Bougnaoui V Micropole Univers, C-188/15, Court of justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017
-  Case of Osmanoglu and Kocabas V. Switzerland (Application No 29086/12), European Court of Human Rights ECHR (2017).
-Convention against Discrimination in Education, 1960
  - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) convention, 1958
-  The decision of the court of Justice of the European communities in case 130/75, Preis V Council of the European Communities, 1976.
- International convention on the protection of the Rights of all migrant workers and membersof their families, 1990
-  Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and pedercen, 23Eur, ct.HR. (SerA), 1982, P90-91
  Convention on the Rights of the child, 1989
- International Law Commission: Report on the Work of its Fifty- Seventh Session, General Assembly Official Records, Sixtieth Session Supplement No.10, A/60/10, 2005, Chapter x1, p220,
-International Law Commision: Report of the Study Group, Fragmentation of International Law” Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi,A/CN.4/L.682,2006,p,206. 
- Wemhoff V. Germany, Series A, no, 7, 27 June 1968, para 23
- Brogan and others V. the United Kingdom, Series A, no, 145-B, 29 November, 1988, para, 59.
- Brannigan and McBride V. the United Kingdom, Series A, no.258-B, 26 May 1993, para, 54.
: Soering V. the United kingdom, Series A, no, 167, 27 July, 1989, Para, 88,
- Tomasi V. France, Series A, no.241-A, 27 Agust, 1992, Para, 38,
-Ribitsch V. Austria, Series A, no, 336, 4 December, 1995, para, 38,
- Sevtop Vezn- edaroglu V. Turkey, Appl.no. 3235/96, 4November 2000, para, 28, -Satik and Others V. Turkey, Appl, no.31866/96, 10 October 2000, para.53
- Belinsk V. Poland, Appl.nos.27715/95 and 36209/96, 20 June 2002, para, 59.
- Brogan and Others, A. 145- B, (2 November 1988), Van Dijk, P
-  Golder V. the United Kingdom, Series A, no.18, 21 February,1975, para,38
-Storck V. Germany, Judgment (16 June 2005), Para. 107-8.
 - Hatton and Other V. the United Kingdom, Appl, no.36022/97, 2 October 2001, paras, 100-2.
 Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 20 March 1952, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38317.html.