Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12131/21
Ján FIGEĽ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Artūrs Kučs, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 12131/21) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 February 2021 by a Slovak national, Mr Ján Figeľ (“the applicant”), who was born in 1960 and lives in Bratislava, and was represented by Mr M. Timcsák, a lawyer practising in Bratislava;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the applicant’s inability to attend public religious services from January until April 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the comments submitted by the European Centre for Law and Justice (“ECLJ”), the Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris (“Ordo Iuris”) and the Free University of Tbilisi, all of which had been granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present application concerns the measures introduced by the Slovak Government in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic between February and April 2021. In particular, it concerns the Cabinet’s resolutions nos. 77, 123 and 160, which extended the state of public emergency until 28 April 2021 and put in place various forms of lockdown, and the Public Health Authority’s decrees nos. 45/2021, 98/2021 and 131/2021, which introduced a number of restrictions including a ban on public events. In response to the latter, the Slovak Bishop’s Conference suspended the holding of public religious services until further notice.
2. The applicant complained that his being prevented from attending public religious services had violated his rights under Article 9 of the Convention. In particular, he argued that the interference in question had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. Referring to Zambrano v. France ((dec.), no. 41994/21, § 43, 21 September 2021), Le Mailloux v. France ((dec.) [Committee], no. 18108/20, § 11, 5 November 2020) and Piperea v. Romania ((dec.) [Committee], no. 24183/21, § 14, 5 July 2022), the Government submitted that the application was an actio popularis. In particular, they asserted that in sections E and F of the application form, the applicant mainly focused on the description of the then applicable restrictions without connecting them to his individual situation or describing their effects on his rights enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention. They also noted that as of April 2021, the various restrictions had been applied on a regional basis according to the actual epidemiological situation. Alternatively, they argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded.
4. The applicant maintained his complaint. In his observations he described his growing up as a Christian during the communist regime, his career as one of the founders of the Slovak Christian-Democratic Movement and the importance of the faith to him. He was a practising Catholic and before and after the imposition of the restrictions he had attended and has been attending religious services three times per week. He had been personally and directly affected by the contested measures because he was a Slovak national, lived within the jurisdiction of Slovakia and had not been able to attend public religious service.
5. The third-party interveners (ECLJ, Ordo Iuris and the Free University of Tbilisi) emphasised the fundamental importance of the freedom of religion and noted that even in times such as the COVID-19 pandemic any restrictions of the freedom of religion should be proportionate and based on scientific evidence and the careful balancing of individual rights.
6. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not envisage the bringing of an actio popularis for the interpretation of the rights it contains or permit individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention. Nevertheless it is open to a person to contend that a law violates his or her rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he or she is required either to modify his or her conduct or risks being prosecuted or if he or she is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see, for example, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 57, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
7. However, even in this context, in order to be able to claim victim status, the applicant must produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him or her personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014, and Le Mailloux, cited above, § 11).
8. Turning to the facts of the present case the Court agrees with the Government that, in his application, the applicant focused primarily on the description and legal analysis of the impugned measures without providing any information about his personal situation beyond the assertion that he could not attend public religious service. He, for example, failed to indicate to which religious community he belonged (compare Magdić v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 17578/20, § 10, 5 July 2022). Moreover, the information provided in his observations was more about the authenticity and validity of his beliefs, which were not challenged by the Government, than about the likelihood of a violation affecting him personally (see paragraph 4 above).
9. The Court further observes that the applicant merely reiterated that he was directly affected by the contested measures because he was a Slovak national living under the jurisdiction of the Slovak State. He did not argue, for example, that had he would have faced prosecution if he had attended a public religious service, that is, that he had been confronted with a dilemma (contrast S.A.S. v. France, cited above, § 57). Nor did he specify how the contested measures applied to the region where he lived even though the measures complained of were gradually adjusted and regularly updated in an attempt to reflect the actual sanitary situation.
10. It thus appears that the applicant wished to complain about the impugned measures in a general manner, considering that, as a result of their adoption, his rights were automatically violated (compare Lörinc and 16 other applications v. Slovakia (dec.) [Committee], no. 27877/21, § 10, 5 April 2022).
11. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and taking into account the considerations above, the application constitutes an actio popularis and the applicant cannot be regarded as victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.
12. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 September 2025.
Liv Tigerstedt Artūrs Kučs
Deputy Registrar President