Dans l'affaire Les Témoins de Jéhovah de Moscou c. Russie (2010), la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme n'a relevé aucun élément indiquant que la communauté contraignait des familles à se séparer, estimant qu'un éloignement découlant de la 'décision indépendante et libre' d'un croyant ne peut être imputé à la religion ; ce passage concernait des proches de convertis, et la Cour suprême de Norvège a relevé en 2026 que la Cour de Strasbourg ne s'est pas prononcée sur l'ostracisme visant les anciens membres.

Claim ID claim-shunning-echr-moscow-2010-limitsConcerns 10 juin 2010Contexte

Contexte · 10 juin 2010 Vérifié

Dans l'affaire Les Témoins de Jéhovah de Moscou c. Russie (2010), la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme n'a relevé aucun élément indiquant que la communauté contraignait des familles à se séparer, estimant qu'un éloignement découlant de la 'décision indépendante et libre' d'un croyant ne peut être imputé à la religion ; ce passage concernait des proches de convertis, et la Cour suprême de Norvège a relevé en 2026 que la Cour de Strasbourg ne s'est pas prononcée sur l'ostracisme visant les anciens membres. Source: European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, 10 juin 2010 Source: Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, 29 avril 2026

Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : La FAQ cite l'opinion de l'ancien juge de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme Pinto de Albuquerque selon laquelle des tribunaux ont jugé la pratique licite.

Afficher les preuves (2 sources)

Document public officiel Vérifié

European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, “Judgment (First Section), paras 109-113”

10 juin 2010 · paras 109-113 · European Court of Human Rights

“as long as self-dedication to religious matters is the product of the believer’s independent and free decision and however unhappy his or her family members may be about that decision, the ensuing estrangement cannot be taken to mean that the religion caused the break-up in the family.”

Para 110: 'The domestic courts did not give examples of any forceful or threatening action on the part of the applicant community calculated to break the families of its members apart.' The passage concerns complaints by non-Witness relatives of converts, not the shunning of ex-members; the Norwegian Supreme Court (2026, para 110) said the ECtHR had not, to its knowledge, ruled on shunning of former members.

Source officielle (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet)

Note de provenance et de vérification

Note sur la fiabilité. HUDOC document body opened via the HUDOC conversion endpoint (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/html/body?library=ECHR&id=001-99221); paragraphs 109-113 read verbatim.

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-echr-2010-0610-jw-moscow-v-russia

Document public officiel Vérifié

Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, “The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)”

29 avril 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett

“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”

3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.

Source officielle (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet) Numérisation de l’original (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet)

Note de provenance et de vérification

Note sur la fiabilité. Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf

Provenance de la numérisation. Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court

Page de l’affirmation Corriger ou mettre à jour

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/fr/evidence/claim-shunning-echr-moscow-2010-limits/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.

L’affirmation et ses preuves

European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, “Judgment (First Section), paras 109-113”

Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, “The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)”