ECHR: Jehovah's Witnesses Cannot Be Prohibited from Door-to-Door Preaching

The European Court of Human Rights found that Bulgaria violated the right to freedom of religion by supporting a municipal ban on door-to-door religious preaching activities. The Court concluded that such a ban was excessive and did not meet the requirements of a democratic society.

The ECHR ruled in the case of Velev and Others v. Bulgaria, finding a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

What happened

The dispute arose from a regulation introduced in 2016 by the municipal council of the city of Shumen. It prohibited so-called "religious propaganda" in the homes of local residents.

The basis for this decision was complaints from some residents who reported that representatives of religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses, came to their homes offering religious literature and engaging in religious discussions.

Administrative fines were provided for violations of the ban.

How the legal disputes developed

Two members of Jehovah's Witnesses and the religious organization itself challenged the ban in national courts.

In 2017, the Administrative Court of Shumen declared the disputed regulation illegal and contrary to freedom of religion. However, after reviewing the case, the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria upheld the ban in 2021.

The Bulgarian court considered that the restriction pursued a legitimate aim — protecting the private and family life of citizens, as well as the inviolability of their homes.

Applicants' arguments

In Strasbourg, the applicants emphasized that door-to-door preaching is an important part of their religious practice.

In their view, the ban effectively forced them either to give up religious activities or risk being held liable.

They also noted that the restriction applied only to religious activities, while other similar forms of communication — commercial offers, political campaigning, or activities of representatives of other organizations — remained permitted.

ECHR's position

The ECHR recognized that states may restrict aggressive, intrusive, or coercive proselytism. At the same time, the Court recalled its established practice: freedom of religion includes the right to peacefully spread one's religious beliefs and attempt to convince others through preaching and religious teaching.

The judges concluded that the ban in Shumen was formulated too broadly. It applied to all forms of "religious propaganda" without distinguishing between coercive behavior and peaceful religious activity.

Moreover, the authorities did not provide evidence of specific or systematic public order violations that could justify such a broad restriction.

The ECHR specifically emphasized that the mere fact of contact with religious views that a person does not share cannot be sufficient grounds for a general ban on missionary activity.

As a result, the Court concluded that the interference did not correspond to a "pressing social need" and was not "necessary in a democratic society," leading to a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.