No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The European Court of Human Rights: Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Legal Materials
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012
References
Endnotes
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights Web site (visited November 15, 2012) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-l 12165.
1 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland, App. No. 16354/06, Grand Chamber Judgment (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 13, 2012) [hereinafter Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland (GC)].
2 European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222.
3 Raël, Geniocracy: Government of the People, for the People, from the Geniuses (2008).
4 Jacques Guyard & Jean-Pierre Brard, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission d’enquête sur la situation financière, patrimoniale et fiscale des sectes, ainsi que sur leurs activités économiques et leurs relations avec les milieux économiques et financiers (Dec. 22, 1995), available at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dossiers/sectes/rl687anx.asp.
5 In order to argue that the applicant enjoys protection under Article 9 ECHR, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the Raëlism is a belief within the meaning of Article 9 ECHR, that is to say, a view that attains “a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.” See Campbell & Co-sans v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 7511/76, 7743/76 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 22, 1983). In addition, it would be necessary to assess whether the Raëlians’ objectives are reconcilable with the “fundamental principles of democracy.” See Refah Partisi & Others v. Turkey, App. Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 & 41344/98, Grand Chamber Judgment (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 24, 2003). For the problems raised by these evaluations, see Bratza, Nicolas, The “Precious Asset”: Freedom of Religion Under the European Convention on Human Rights, 14 Ecclesiastical L. J. 256, 259 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Mauro Gatti, Autonomy of Religious Organisations in the European Convention of Human Rights and European Union Law (Paper presented at the Conference “Fundamental Rights in Europe and China: Between Identities and Universalism,” Bologna, May 28-29, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148596.
6 Cf. Opinion by the Swiss Federal Court, quoted in Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (Section), infra note 7, ¶ 14.
7 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland, App. No. 16354/06, Section Judgment, ¶ 50 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13, 2011) [hereinafter Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (Section)].
8 Women On Waves & Others v. Portugal, App. No. 31276/05, ¶ 40 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 3 2009).
9 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (Section), supra note 7, ¶ 52.
10 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (GC), supra note 1, ¶ 51.
11 Id. ¶ 58.
12 Id. ¶ 65.
13 Id. ¶¶ 61-62.
14 Id. ¶ 72.
15 Id. ¶ 75.
16 Id. (dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque).
17 Id. (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Power-Forde, Vučinić & Yudkivska, ¶ 11).
18 Id. (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska & Vučinić, ¶ I).
19 For the United States, see Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 494, 514-15 (1981); for Canada, see Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), 2 SCR 1084, 1096-97 (1993); cf. Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (GC), supra note 1 (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska & Vučinić, ¶ II & appendix, and dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque).
20 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (GC), supra note 1 (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska & Vučinić, ¶ V).
21 Id. ¶ II (finding that “the Swiss authorities did not demonstrate that the expression “privileged sexual object” had actually encouraged paedophilia .... There had been a few convictions of members of the Movement, but there is no evidence that their number is statistically significantly higher than convictions of members of other denominations.”) See also Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (GC), supra note 1 (dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, noting that “since the applicant association was not engaged in any unlawful cloning activity, not even as a moral or material accomplice, it was not proportionate to prohibit the mere statement of an opinion favourable to cloning.”).
22 Id. (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Power-Forde, Vučinić & Yudkivska, ¶ 11).
23 Marko Milanovic, Content-based Speech Restrictions in the European Court, EJIL: TALK! (July 17, 2012), http://www.ej-iltalk.org/content-based-speech-restrictions-in-the-european-court/.
24 Id. (stating that “the fact that the Raelians are a bunch of nutters didn’t help the cause of free speech much”). On similar prejudices against so-called “cults” and the dangers they allegedly pose, see Anne Morelli, Lettre Ouverte à La Secte Des Adversaires Des Sectes (1997).