ISKCON and others v. UK, No. 20490/92, ECommHR (First Chamber), 8 March 2004

The enforcement notice served to a religious organization which has used a building in a manner incompatible with urban planning does not breach Article 9 of the ECHR. The application is inadmissible as it is manifestly ill-founded.

 

Art. 6 ECHR
Art. 9 ECHR
Art. 13 ECHR
Art. 14 ECHR
Art. 1 Prot. 1 ECHR
 

1. The contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in regulating planning matters.

2. The adjective "necessary", in the second paragraph of Article 9 of ECHR, implies the existence of a "pressing social need". Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the law and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. The task of the Convention organs is not to substitute their view for that of the competent national authorities, but rather to review under the Article at issue pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercises its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the Convention organs have to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient".

3. Article 9 of the Convention cannot be used to circumvent existing planning legislation, provided that in the proceedings under that legislation adequate weight is given to freedom of religion. However, the Commission must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights.