The European Court of Human Rights is currently considering several German cases on the autonomy of religious organizations or churches within secular German labor law and resulting conflict resolution issues that arise within religious communities. In the past, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently underlined the importance of church autonomy, relying on the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 9 guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Implementing these provisions in the context of religious autonomy, the Court has critically noted:

[T]he autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is, thus, an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords.… The right [of religious communities] to an autonomous existence is at the very heart of the guarantees in Article 9.

The Evolution of Religious Freedom in the European Court of Human Rights

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious freedom, looked for many decades as though it was going to be effectively a dead letter. The European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) did not find a violation of Article 9 until the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece which was decided only seventeen years ago, in 1993. Even after that seminal decision, religious freedom cases were still relatively rare for several years; in 2001, there had been fewer than thirty Court cases on Article 9. However, in the last decade the case law has expanded significantly; and from 2001 to 2010 there have been more than sixty additional cases. Thus, in a relatively short period, the Court has been pushed to develop a jurisprudence of religious freedom to deal with increasingly complex and controversial cases. As the case law has multiplied and the issues have diversified, however, it has become clear that the Court has not yet developed a sufficiently coherent and principled approach to this area. So far, its approach has proved of very limited utility to individuals making claims of religious freedom.

This is not to suggest that the Court has played no role in the protection of religious freedom in Europe. Indeed, in recent years, it has arguably played an increasingly positive role, particularly in cases involving group religious rights. However, this jurisprudence has not translated into greater protection for religious individuals in many instances.

During the past five years, issues concerning the freedom of religion, and its relationship with the freedom of expression have received an ever higher profile in both the media and in political debate. The purpose of this article is to reflect on the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights to some of the most significant of these issues. In a short article of this nature it is not possible to examine each of the issues in a comprehensive fashion, but by juxtaposing relatively brief overviews of these cases, some general insights regarding the current mood of the Court and the capacity of the Convention system to engage with ever more pressing issues will emerge. The main challenge appears to be the need to reconcile the Court's emphasis upon neutrality and impartiality, found in its more recent case law concerning state relations with religious associations, with the core value of respect, which has long dominated its approach in other areas. Its failure to address this challenge in an appropriate manner threatens the Court's ability to engage with emerging problems in a satisfactory fashion.