The European Court finds that Belgium violated the human rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses by not granting tax exemptions – JURIST – List Login (90xtra.com)
The highest European Court ruled that Belgium violated the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses by failing to grant tax breaks in a ruling Tuesday. denied property tax exemptions. Under the legislation created by the Brussels-Capital Region in 2018, the tax exemption applied to “recognized religions”. Belgium argued that this did not apply to applicant congregations, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation disputed that the exemption was not granted on grounds of discrimination. The courts assessed whether Belgium had violated article 14 and article 9, which prohibit discrimination and promote freedom of thought, respectively. . They found that current regulations do not provide sufficient discrimination protection for applicant congregations and that recognition is determined by the legislature, not the State. To review the claim for a modicum of fairness, the actions not to grant tax exemptions were not based on an “objective evaluation of their claims.” Article 1 Protocol No. 1 protecting property under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, despite the plaintiff’s request for €1,000 in non-pecuniary damages arising from the payment of property tax, the court did not award any money as the determination of a human rights violation was sufficient.
The highest European Court ruled that Belgium violated the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses by failing to grant tax breaks in a ruling Tuesday. denied property tax exemptions. Under the legislation created by the Brussels-Capital Region in 2018, the tax exemption applied to “recognized religions”. Belgium argued that this did not apply to applicant congregations, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation disputed that the exemption was not granted on grounds of discrimination. The courts assessed whether Belgium had violated article 14 and article 9, which prohibit discrimination and promote freedom of thought, respectively. . They found that current regulations do not provide sufficient discrimination protection for applicant congregations and that recognition is determined by the legislature, not the State. To review the claim for a modicum of fairness, the actions not to grant tax exemptions were not based on an “objective evaluation of their claims.” Article 1 Protocol No. 1 protecting property under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, despite the plaintiff’s request for €1,000 in non-pecuniary damages arising from the payment of property tax, the court did not award any money as the determination of a human rights violation was sufficient.