Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia
Nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, 7 June 2022
“175. As long as there is no evidence of abuse, violence or unlawful coercion, decisions about whether to give a child a religious or non-religious education, whether to involve him or her in sports, science, arts or music, whether to provide unstructured free time or a strict daily routine, and whether to keep company with like-minded people, are to be made exclusively by the child’s parents or, as the case may be, the custodial parent. Such decisions fall within the sphere of the private and family life which is protected from unjustified State interference. It follows that what was taken by the Russian courts to constitute impermissible involvement of minors was in fact a manifestation of the parents’ beliefs in their private lives in the sense protected by Article 9 …” (Original in English.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia
No. 302/02, 10 June 2010
“117. The Court reiterates that “private life” is a broad term encompassing the sphere of personal autonomy within which everyone can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his or her personality and to establish and develop relationships with other persons and the outside world. … In the light of these principles, the decisions of Jehovah’s Witnesses whether to take full-time or part-time, paid or unpaid employment, whether and how to celebrate events significant to them, including religious and personal events such as wedding anniversaries, births, housewarmings, university admissions, were matters that fell within the sphere of “private life” of community members.
118. The Court emphasises that it is a common feature of many religions that they determine doctrinal standards of behaviour by which their followers must abide in their private lives. Religious precepts that govern the conduct of adherents in private life include, for instance, regular attendance at church services, performance of certain rituals such as communion or confession, observance of religious holidays or abstention from work on specific days of the week … wearing specific clothes … dietary restrictions … and many others Jehovah’s Witnesses’ regulations on allowing sufficient time for religious activities and abstaining from celebrating non-Witnesses or secular events were in that sense not fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers’ private lives. By obeying these precepts their daily lives, believers manifested their desire to comply strictly with the religious beliefs they professed and their liberty to do so was guaranteed by Article 9 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] in the form of the freedom to manifest religion, alone and in private.” (Original in English.)
The Supreme Court in Japan
March 8, 1996, 1995 (Gyo-Tsu) 74
2. … there was a serious reason why the Appellee refused to participate in kendo practice, closely related to the core of his faith. The Appellee did not refuse to take part in other P.E. activities and was not found markedly unenthusiastic. … As a consequence of his refusal to participate in kendo practice for reasons of religious faith, the Appellee was led into a situation of being retained in the same class for another year and dismissed from school even though he had an excellent record in other subjects, and it is evident that the Appellee was put at a great disadvantage arising therefrom.
4. … the measures taken by the Appellant who, without distinguishing the refusal to participate in kendo practice for reasons of religious faith from refusal to attend for unjustifiable reasons, without considering possible alternative measures notwithstanding it is not impossible to offer alternative activities, just resting on the evaluation by the teacher-in-charge and others who did not accredit the said student in P.E., handed down a disposition to retain the student in the same class for another year and furthermore, handed down a disposition to dismiss the student from school, without regard to the main grounds for unsuccessful accreditation and the overall school record of the said student, concluding that it fell under “If an individual has an inferior level of academic ability and is not expected to accomplish his/her studies” set forth in the School Rules pursuant to the Regulations on Promotion, Etc., and the Bylaw on Dismissal because the said student was subjected to being retained in the same class for two consecutive years, fails to take into account the matters to be considered, or obviously falls short of rationally evaluating the facts under consideration; hence, this Court arrives at the ruling that the Appellant handed down dispositions that are lacking in appropriateness compared with the view commonly accepted in society and that are illegal beyond the scope of discretionary authority.