Religion – Weltanschauung – Recht [ RWR ]

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Vojnity v. Hungary (application no. 29617/07), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the total removal of a father’s access rights on the grounds that his religious convictions had been detrimental to his son’s upbringing.

The Court found that the Hungarian courts had failed to prove that it was in the child’s best interest to have all ties severed with his father, who had therefore been discriminated against in the exercise of his right to respect for family life. Indeed, there had been no exceptional circumstance to justify taking such a radical measure as severing all form of contact and family life between Mr Vojnity and his son.

Principal facts

The applicant, Péro Vojnity, was a Hungarian national who was born in 1948 and lived in Szeged (Hungarian). Mr Vojnity belonged to the religious denomination „Hit Gyülekezete“ (Congregation of the Faith). In 2000, his son was placed with his ex-wife following their divorce. On two occasions, the Hungarian courts rejected Mr Vojnity’s request to have his access rights re-regulated. In 2006, the Hungarian courts withdrew custody from the mother and, refusing to give it to Mr. Vojnity because of his alleged proselytism, placed the boy with his older brother. Ultimately, in February 2008, the Hungarian courts removed Mr Vojnity’s access rights altogether, finding that he abused those rights by imposing his religious convictions on his son.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Vojnity complained in particular that the denial of his access rights had been based on his religious beliefs and that he had been treated differently to other people seeking access rights following divorce or separation. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 July 2007.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Guido Raimondi (Italy), President,

Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
András Sajó (Hungary),
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal),
Helen Keller (Switzerland),

and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8

The Court recalled that the enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constituted a fundamental element of family life. Mr Vojnity had had regular contact with his son until the decision of the national authorities to withdraw his access rights.

The removal of those access rights had essentially been based on Mr Vojnity’s religious beliefs, which constituted a difference of treatment with other parents placed in a similar situation but who did not have any strong religious conviction. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, such a difference of treatment had to have an objective and reasonable justification, otherwise it was discriminatory. In this particular case, the Hungarian courts, taking the child’s best interests into account, had held that both the alleged irrational worldviews and proselytism of Mr Vojnity would endanger his son’s development.

However, there had been no convincing evidence to show that the applicant’s religion had exposed his son to dangerous practices or physical harm. Despite the strict scrutiny that was called for when restricting parental rights, the national courts had applied an absolute ban without explaining what real harm an „irrational worldview“ could cause.

Moreover, the Hungarian courts had removed Mr Vojnity’s access rights altogether without giving due consideration to any possible alternatives, such as access rights under controlled circumstances.

In sum, there had been no exceptional circumstance to justify taking such a radical measure as severing all form of contact and family life between Mr Vojnity and his son and the measure had therefore been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely protecting the child’s best interests. Consequently, the Court held that Mr Vojnity had been discriminated against on the basis of his religion in the exercise of his right to respect for family life, in violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8.

Other articles

The Court considered that no separate issues arose under Article 6, under Article 8 taken alone or under Article 9 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14.

Article 41 (just satisfaction)

The Court held that Hungary was to pay the applicant € 12,500 in respect of nonpecuniary damage and € 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Press release ECHR 044 (2013) 12/02/2013