Does Alcohol Near Churches Violate Believers' Rights: Court Puts an End to the Debate

In Poland, a court considered an unusual case in which a resident of Krakow tried to challenge the rules for placing establishments that sell alcohol near religious buildings. The man claimed that the presence of intoxicated people near churches interferes with his practice of religion and violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion. However, the court concluded that subjective feelings alone are insufficient grounds for such a lawsuit, and the contested decision does not violate his legal rights.

This conclusion was reached by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Krakow in case No. III SA/Kr 1197/25 regarding the decision of the Krakow City Council, which established rules for the placement of places selling and serving alcoholic beverages within the city.

Why the Krakow resident went to court

The plaintiff, who lives in Krakow, stated that he often encounters intoxicated people near churches. In his opinion, this hinders concentration during religious practices and contradicts his religious beliefs.

He argued that the City Council's decision:

• violates the principle of equality before the law;
• complicates the exercise of freedom of conscience and religion;
• contradicts the provisions of the Polish Act of October 26, 1982, "On Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism";
• effectively increases the availability of alcohol in public spaces.

The plaintiff also noted that in the historic center of Krakow, near many religious buildings, numerous establishments sell or serve alcohol, which, in his view, creates obstacles to practicing religion.

He justified his right to bring the case by stating that he is a resident of Krakow and a practicing believer. Additionally, during the court hearing, he said he was also acting on behalf of a public movement of which he is a member.

The plaintiff asked the court to fully cancel the City Council's decision.

The City Council's position

The Krakow City Council asked the court to dismiss the complaint. It emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of a legal interest, which is a mandatory condition for challenging such a decision.

What the court decided

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Krakow dismissed the complaint.

The court reminded that according to Polish law, a decision of a local government body can only be challenged by a person whose rights or legal interest are directly violated.

In the court's opinion, the plaintiff did not prove this.

The decision states that he did not demonstrate any real legal consequences for his rights or obligations. The mere fact of living in Krakow and practicing religion does not indicate a violation of a legal interest.

The court emphasized that Polish judicial practice distinguishes between factual interest and legal interest. In this case, the plaintiff could only prove his personal dissatisfaction with the situation, which is insufficient for substantive consideration of the case.

Moreover, the administrative court stressed that a decision of a government body cannot be challenged solely in the interest of society as a whole. Protection of the public interest is ensured through state supervision procedures, not by filing an individual administrative lawsuit.

Why the court did not see a violation of freedom of religion

The court separately analyzed the arguments about alleged violations of freedom of conscience and religion.

It noted that Article 53 of the Polish Constitution guarantees everyone freedom of conscience and religion, including the right to:

• profess or accept a religion of their choice;
• individually or collectively perform religious services;
• pray;
• practice and spread their religious beliefs.

Restrictions on these rights are possible only by law and only when necessary to protect state security, public order, health, morals, or the rights of others.

At the same time, the court noted that the contested City Council decision in no way affected the plaintiff's ability to attend church, participate in services, or otherwise exercise his right to freedom of religion.

Therefore, mere dissatisfaction with the presence of establishments selling alcohol near religious buildings does not indicate a violation of constitutional rights.

The public movement also had no right to file a complaint

The court also rejected the argument that the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a public movement of which the plaintiff is a member.

As noted, this movement is an informal initiative and does not have the procedural legal personality required to participate in administrative proceedings.

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