Background
The applicant organisation bought three plots in Yerevan in 2009. Its ownership certificates described all three as designated for public buildings, and planning permissions issued to previous owners for two plots had identified them as being in a mixed-development zone. In December 2012, the organisation sought planning permissions needed to build places of worship.
The Yerevan mayor’s office refused two applications, saying religious buildings in residential areas could provoke complaints and intolerance from neighbours. It deferred the third while addressing urban-development issues. Armenian courts ultimately rejected or discontinued the organisation’s claims; the Court of Appeal relied in part on a 2014 internal municipal letter asserting that the plots fell within industrial, recreational, residential, or mixed-use zones.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 9. Refusing the planning permissions interfered with the organisation’s freedom of religion because it prevented it for years from building places of worship on land acquired for that purpose.
The interference was not “prescribed by law.” The municipal refusals cited alleged neighbour complaints or intolerance but identified no domestic-law provision authorising refusal on that basis, and the authorities produced no evidence of such complaints despite bearing the burden of proof. The later internal letter could not supply a legal basis retroactively and contained questionable, inconsistent zoning information that conflicted with the ownership certificates and earlier planning permissions. The Court therefore did not examine legitimate aim or necessity.
Key Takeaways
- Planning restrictions affecting places of worship engage Article 9 where they prevent a religious organisation from constructing worship facilities.
- Authorities must identify a lawful basis and support asserted public objections with evidence; unsubstantiated intolerance cannot justify a refusal.
- A later internal municipal document cannot retrospectively provide the legal basis for an earlier planning refusal.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that land-use and planning decisions are subject to Convention scrutiny when they burden religious practice. Municipal discretion over urban development does not permit authorities to refuse worship-site applications without a clear legal basis and reliable evidence.
The Court awarded the applicant organisation EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,232 for costs and expenses, while rejecting its claim for pecuniary damage. It made no separate ruling on the remaining complaints.