Leela Förderkreis E.V. and Others v. Germany
Encyclopedia
Leela Förderkreis E.V. and Others v. Germany (application No. 58911/00) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights
in 2008.
movement. As part of their public relations work, State agencies have characterised these associations as a “sect”, “youth sect”, “youth religion” and “psycho-sect”. The adjectives “destructive” and “pseudo-religious” have also been used to describe them, and the accusation has been raised that their members are manipulated.
Federal Constitutional Court
, after more than 11 years of consideration, decided that the use of the expressions “destructive”, and “pseudo-religious” on the associations, and the allegation that they “manipulated their members”, did not satisfy the requirements of constitutional law. However, it found that the Government was authorised to characterise the applicant associations’ movement as a “sect”, “youth religion”, “youth sect” and “psycho-sect” and was allowed to provide the public with adequate information about it.
(rights to fair trial), unanimously.
Concerning allegations of violating Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the Court held that the Government’s statements as delimited by the Federal Constitutional Court, at least at the time they were made, did not entail overstepping the bounds of what a democratic State may regard as the public interest.
Two judges, Trajkovska and Kalaydjieva, filed partially dissenting opinions, considering that Article 9 was violated (Kalaydjieva saw also Article 14 as violated).
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
in 2008.
Facts
The applicants were religious or meditation associations belonging to the OshoOsho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)
Osho , born Chandra Mohan Jain , and also known as Acharya Rajneesh from the 1960s onwards, as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh during the 1970s and 1980s and as Osho from 1989, was an Indian mystic, guru, and spiritual teacher who garnered an international following.A professor of philosophy, he travelled...
movement. As part of their public relations work, State agencies have characterised these associations as a “sect”, “youth sect”, “youth religion” and “psycho-sect”. The adjectives “destructive” and “pseudo-religious” have also been used to describe them, and the accusation has been raised that their members are manipulated.
Federal Constitutional Court
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany
The Federal Constitutional Court is a special court established by the Grundgesetz, the German basic law...
, after more than 11 years of consideration, decided that the use of the expressions “destructive”, and “pseudo-religious” on the associations, and the allegation that they “manipulated their members”, did not satisfy the requirements of constitutional law. However, it found that the Government was authorised to characterise the applicant associations’ movement as a “sect”, “youth religion”, “youth sect” and “psycho-sect” and was allowed to provide the public with adequate information about it.
Judgment
The Court held that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Therefore it has found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human RightsEuropean Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...
(rights to fair trial), unanimously.
Concerning allegations of violating Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the Court held that the Government’s statements as delimited by the Federal Constitutional Court, at least at the time they were made, did not entail overstepping the bounds of what a democratic State may regard as the public interest.
Two judges, Trajkovska and Kalaydjieva, filed partially dissenting opinions, considering that Article 9 was violated (Kalaydjieva saw also Article 14 as violated).