The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy violated fundamental principles of equality and religious freedom.
by Massimo Introvigne
The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a judgment that reshapes the relationship between the Italian State and minority religions. On 11 June 2026, the Court unanimously held that Italy discriminated against the association representing Jehovah’s Witnesses in Italy, by keeping them outside the system of agreements known as intese. These agreements are the gateway to the country’s main religious funding mechanism, the “eight per thousand,” which allows taxpayers to choose religious bodies that receive 0.8% of their taxes.
The Court described this mechanism as “clearly designed for the proper functioning of beneficiary religious communities and contributing to an effective exercise of freedom of religion.” For more than forty years, the applicant tried to obtain an agreement. Three Prime Ministers signed the text. Parliament never approved it. Each time the legislature ended, the process collapsed, and the community had to start again.
The story is a long sequence of political interruptions. The first negotiations began in 1977. A text was signed in 2000. Parliament dissolved. A new text was signed in 2007. Parliament dissolved again. A third text was signed in 2014. In 2015, the Council of Ministers reopened the process to question the community’s beliefs on blood transfusions. The applicant replied that the question itself amounted to a judgment on the legitimacy of its convictions. The procedure stalled. No reply ever came. Meanwhile, thirteen other religions obtained agreements between 1984 and 2021. The Court noted that it was unaware of any other regularly registered religion that had been unable to obtain an agreement after such a long process.
The judgment examines the arguments Italy used to justify the exclusion. The Government relied on concerns about blood transfusions, blood donations, military service, and voting. The Court reviewed each point and found no evidence of any real threat to public order or health. It observed that Italian law already protects the right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment, and that judges can intervene on behalf of minors. It added that mandatory military service has been suspended since 2005 and that abstention from voting is lawful. The Court remarked that the Government had not produced material capable of showing that the applicant’s beliefs created a concrete problem. It also noted that the executive branch had already accepted the compatibility of these beliefs with Italian law when three Prime Ministers signed the agreement texts.
The analysis also relies on “Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia” (2010) and “Taganrog v. Russia” (2022), in which the ECHR examined the same arguments and reached similar conclusions.
The judgment restates a principle that has guided Strasbourg jurisprudence for decades. The State must remain neutral and impartial in its relations with religions. The Court noted that the right to freedom of religion excludes any assessment by the State of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the modalities of their expression. The Italian authorities reopened the negotiations in 2015 precisely to examine the content of the applicant’s beliefs. The Court found that this approach conflicted with the duty of neutrality.
The ruling also addresses the structure of the Italian system. The intesa procedure is not regulated by statute. There are no criteria, no deadlines, no duty to give reasons, and no judicial review. The Court concluded that such a system intrinsically carries a risk of arbitrariness.
This finding has implications beyond Italy. Any State that creates a system of privileges for religions must ensure that clear and non-discriminatory rules govern access. The Court added a new element to its case law by holding that a State religious-funding grant constitutes a protected possession even when the applicant has never received it. The judgment states that the applicant’s interest in the eight per thousand was sufficiently important and recognized to constitute a possession. This expands the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 into new territory.
The Court found that the applicant was in a comparable situation to the thirteen religions that obtained agreements. The only formal conditions are consistency with the legal order and legal personality. The applicant satisfied both. The prolonged inability to conclude an agreement lacked objective and reasonable justification. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 14, taken together with Articles 9 and 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The judgment does not order Italy to conclude an agreement. The Court explained that this would exceed its jurisdiction. Italy must now choose how to comply. It may conclude an agreement. It may reform the eight per thousand so that access no longer depends on an agreement. It may adopt clear legislative criteria for the procedure. The Committee of Ministers will supervise the execution of the judgment. Further domestic litigation is likely to be required to obtain the practical benefits of the eight per thousand.
Two judges wrote a concurring opinion. They agreed with the outcome but expressed concern about the Court’s engagement with the substance of the applicant’s beliefs. They warned that such assessments can be open to challenge. Their observation highlights a tension that arises whenever a State offers ex post justifications for a political process that lacks a judicial record. The Court nevertheless set a demanding evidentiary threshold. Governments invoking similar arguments in future cases will face a high bar.
This judgment confirms that minority religions cannot be excluded from State-created benefit systems without clear and lawful criteria. It reinforces the principle that governments cannot evaluate the legitimacy of religious beliefs. It extends the protection of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to include State grants that have never been received. It exposes the structural weaknesses of systems that rely on political discretion without procedural safeguards. Above all, it brings an end to a forty-year cycle in which one of Italy’s largest religious communities was kept outside a system open to many others.
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.
