In some cases, the Convention requires more positive action. In Eweida v. United Kingdom, the court indicated “Where the acts complained of were carried out by private companies and were not therefore directly attributable to the State, the Court must consider the terms of the positive obligations of state authorities to secure the rights under Article 9 to those within their jurisdiction. . . . While the boundary between the State\u2019s positive and negative obligations under the Convention does not lend itself to precise definition, the applicable principles are, nonetheless, similar. In both contexts, regard must be had in particular to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, subject in any event to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State.<\/p>\n
In Otto Preminger Institut v. Austria, it was held that the State had obligations to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines.<\/p>\n
Given the pluralist nature of the Convention, those holding beliefs could not reasonably be expected to be exempt from all criticism and must tolerate and accept the denial d by others of their religious belief and the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.<\/p>\n
In Scrif v. Greece, the applicant was elected religious leader of Muslim communities in Thrace. This usurped the functions of another person appointed to that office by the State. The applicant was convicted of having usurped the minister. The court found that Article 9 had been breached. It did not accept the defence that the state had to intervene to avoid tensions between religious groups. It emphasised that tensions between religious groups were unavoidable in a pluralistic society and that the role of the state was to ensure tolerance. It was not required to establish a single leadership.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rights of Groups In Leela Forderkriese ve EV and others v. Germany, the right of religious associations to assert right under the Convention on behalf of its members was confirmed. Some ECHR states have established state religions, whereas others provide that no religion shall be established. In Leela Forderkreis EV v. Germany, the Bhagwan movement […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[349],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10226"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10226"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10226\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23578,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10226\/revisions\/23578"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}