Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Z and T v. United Kingdom, dec., No. 27034/05, ECtHR (Fourth Section), 28 February 2006

Abstract

Conferral of refugee status to persons who, on their return to their country of origin, would be deprived of the right to live their faith freely and openly. Persecution on account of religion in the country of origin.

Normative references

Art. 9 ECHR

Ruling

1. Protection is offered to those who have a substantiated claim that, once returned to their country of origin, they will either suffer persecution for religious reasons or will be at real risk of death or serious ill-treatment, and possibly flagrant denial of a fair trial or arbitrary detention, because of their religious affiliation.

2. Where however an individual claims that on return to his own country he would be impeded in his religious worship, very limited assistance, if any, can be derived from Article 9 of the Convention. Otherwise it would be imposing an obligation on Contracting States effectively to act as indirect guarantors of freedom of worship for the rest of world.

3. Assuming that Article 9 of the Convention is in principle capable of being engaged in the circumstances of the expulsion of an individual by a Contracting State, the applicants have to show that they are personally at such risk or are members of such a vulnerable or threatened group or in such a precarious position as Christians as might disclose any appearance of a flagrant violation of Article 9 of the Convention.
(In the present case, two Christian Pakistani nationals alleged that, if returned to their country of origin, they will not be able to live as Christians without incurring the risk of receiving hostile attention or having to take measures to conceal their religion. According to the applicants, to require them to change their behaviour by concealing their adherence to Christianity and by renouncing the opportunity to speak about their faith and to bear witness to it before others was tantamount, in practice, to deny the right to freedom of religion per se. The Court declared the application inadmissible, on the basis of a distinction between the fundamental safeguards referred to in Articles 2-6 of the ECHR and the other provisions of the Convention).