The Strasbourg Court condemns a municipal ban in Bulgaria and sets a demanding standard for State action affecting proselytization.
by Massimo Introvigne
The unanimous judgment delivered on 9 June 2026 by the European Court of Human Rights in “Velev and Others v. Bulgaria” provides broad protection for door-to-door preaching as practiced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The case arose from a 2016 municipal ordinance adopted by the town of Shumen, which prohibited what it called religious propaganda at private homes. The measure was formally broad, though the administrative record showed it had been prompted by complaints about visits from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Domestic courts upheld the ordinance. The European Court of Human Rights reached a different conclusion, and its reasoning will influence future disputes far beyond Bulgaria.
The Court examined the nature of the activity at issue and described door‑to‑door preaching as an essential manifestation of the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This characterization carries legal consequences. When a practice is recognized as central to a religion, any interference requires justification beyond routine administrative considerations. The Court applied its most demanding standard of review and found that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to meet it. The judgment therefore confirms that activities integral to a religious identity enjoy heightened protection under Article 9 of the Convention.
The Court then turned to the reasons the municipality invoked. The authorities had referred to complaints from residents who did not welcome religious visits. The Court observed that the file contained no evidence of serious or repeated disturbances. It added that exposure to ideas or convictions one does not share forms part of life in a democratic society characterized by pluralism and tolerance.
This observation has implications that extend well beyond the facts of the case. Many local authorities across Europe have attempted to restrict religious outreach by invoking discomfort among residents. The judgment indicates that such discomfort, without proof of concrete harm, cannot justify broad prohibitions.
The Bulgarian ordinance did not define what “religious propaganda” exactly is. Bulgaria tried to argue that the ordinance prohibited only abusive forms of proselytization, but the European Court was not persuaded. The judges noted that “This absence of any definition is of particular importance in the sphere of religious freedom, where the imprecision of the terms used is liable to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. The Court observes, in this regard, that the parties attribute to the notion of ‘religious propaganda’ substantially different meanings: according to the applicants, it covers all door-to-door preaching, whereas the Government submits that it targets only abusive or coercive proselytism. However, nothing in the text of the by-law makes it possible to distinguish clearly between, on the one hand, abusive proselytism…, and, on the other hand, ordinary religious witness or peaceful evangelizing, which in principle benefit from the protection of that provision.”
A further element of the judgment concerns the duty of neutrality. Although the Shumen ordinance was drafted in general terms, the Court noted that it was adopted in response to concerns about a specific religious community. By assimilating door‑to‑door preaching to an interference with the right to respect for the home, the authorities failed to maintain the impartiality required in matters of religion. This part of the judgment will be relevant in situations where a State focuses its attention on one group while comparable activities by others remain unexamined. The Court’s reasoning requires authorities to demonstrate both the existence of serious problems and the even‑handed application of their measures. When either element is missing, the State’s action becomes incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is a key part of the decision, as in several countries, Jehovah’s Witnesses are targeted for doctrines and practices they have in common with several other religious organizations, which are largely left alone.
The judgment contains an additional layer of interest. Several years ago, the Court upheld a data‑protection requirement in a case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses in Finland. That decision was widely regarded as unfavorable to the applicants. Yet the Court had included a sentence acknowledging the centrality of their preaching activity. In “Velev,”, the Court relied on that sentence and incorporated it into the foundation of its analysis. A passage that once appeared marginal has now acquired significant weight and contributes to a stronger protection of religious liberty.
The applicants received an award of EUR 3,000 for costs. The symbolic value of the judgment, however, far exceeds the financial aspect. “Velev and Others v. Bulgaria” will influence future litigation wherever religious minorities face selective scrutiny or broad restrictions unsupported by evidence. It stands as a reminder that the Convention protects the diversity of religious expression across all forty‑six member States of the Council of Europe and that ordinances cannot override fundamental rights through vague references to public unease.
Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio. From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.
