Abstract
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova is one of the landmark cases of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 9 of the ECHR. Several arguments of the Court concerning limitations to the freedom of religion and religious pluralism deserve particular consideration. To assess the interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, the Court used the three-part test set out in Article 9 (2) of the ECHR and examined whether these cumulative conditions are fulfilled: (i) the interference was prescribed by law; (ii) it had a legitimate aim; (iii) it was necessary in a democratic society. While the Court strongly emphasized in this judgement and its subsequent case law the importance of religious pluralism, generally it refrained from referring to concrete measures that States could take in this regard. The case of Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v Hungary (App no. 70945/11 et al., 8 April 2014) provides a notable exception to this approach: The Court held that the State has a positive obligation to put in place a system of recognition which facilitates the acquisition of legal personality by religious communities. However, as Ferri (2019: 31) points out, “religious pluralism is a paradigmatic example of the European Court’s reluctance to identify positive obligations stemming from the freedom of religion and belief.”