15 Nov The requirement for prisoners to prove their faith in writing is not in accordance with the Convention

In the case of Neagu v. Romania (application no. 21969/15, 10.11.2020) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned a prisoner who had converted to Islam while in detention. He complained of the refusal of the Romanian authorities to provide him with pork-free meals, in accordance with the precepts of his religion, unless he furnished proof that he was an adherent of that religion. 

The Court noted that the requirement referred to in Order no. 1072/2013 concerned only prisoners who converted in the course of their detention, as in all other cases prisoners could declare their religious affiliation simply by means of a solemn declaration. Moreover, the order in question had introduced a distinction between the initial declaration of religion, which the prisoner could make freely and without particular formalities when he or she was admitted to prison, and a change of religion in the course of detention, which the prisoner had to prove by means of a document issued by representatives of his or her new faith. 

In the Court’s view such a regulation, entailing a strict requirement to provide documentary proof of adhering to a specific faith, went beyond the level of substantiation of genuine belief that could be required. This was especially true in a situation where prisoners were initially free to declare their religion without furnishing any proof.

Furthermore, in considering Mr Neagu’s complaint concerning Brăila Prison, both the judge reviewing the detention and the first-instance court had dismissed the applicant’s appeal without examining the factual background to his request, on the grounds that he had not furnished the written proof required by the regulations. Likewise, they had not ascertained whether Mr Neagu would have a genuine opportunity to obtain written proof or some other confirmation that he was a follower of the faith in question, particularly bearing in mind the restrictions to which he was subject as a prisoner.

The Court therefore considered that, bearing in mind the provisions introduced by the order of the Ministry of Justice requiring, among other things, written proof of a change of religion occurring in the course of detention, the national authorities had upset the fair balance to be struck between the interests of the prison, those of the other prisoners, and the individual interests of the prisoner concerned. In that regard it was not persuaded that Mr Neagu’s requests to be provided with meals compatible with his religion would have caused problems in running the prison or have had a negative impact on the diet offered to other prisoners. There had therefore been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights