PART THREE: PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS to register or otherwise recognize religious communities.985 It has also deemed unlawful legislative changes leading to effective non-registration or deregistration of religious communities.986 PART THREE In its guide on article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe summarizes the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in this area, noting that “the refusal to recognise the legal personality of a religious community or to grant it such personality constitutes interference with the exercise of the rights secured under Article 9, in their external and collective dimension, in respect of the community itself but also of its members”.987 In addition, “the authorities’ refusal to register a group directly affects both the group itself and its presidents, founders or individual members”.988 In its jurisprudence, the Court has further interpreted article 9 in light of article 11, finding that “a refusal by the domestic authorities to grant legal-entity status to an association of individuals amounts to an interference with the applicants’ exercise of their right to freedom of association”.989 In various cases, the Court has considered that mere tolerance by the State of the activities of a non-recognized religious organization is not “a substitute for recognition, which alone is capable of conferring rights on those concerned”.990 The Court has ruled that the express authorization of the activities of non-recognized religious groups by relevant legislation is “insufficient if domestic law reserves a whole series of rights essential for conducting religious activities for registered organisations with legal personality”.991 As concerns the waiting time for the authorities to consider an application by a religious group or organization for conferment of legal personality, the Court considers that States have an obligation to keep this process “reasonably short” for the purposes of article 9 of the Convention.992 In this regard, adjudication has treated religious groups to a certain extent differently from ethnic groups. In cases concerning religious communities, the victim may be both an individual member of the community or the community per se. In cases concerning discrimination against ethnic minorities, it is unlikely that the group per se would be deemed the victim, unless the case concerned very extreme harms, such as genocide. B. Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief in other areas of life All forms of discrimination – including both direct and indirect discrimination – on the basis of religion or belief in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care or in the realization of other civil, cultural, economic, political or social rights are prohibited under international law. Many cases of direct discrimination on the basis of religion or belief raise no particular questions of law outside of the standard rules banning discrimination detailed above and are thus not explored here. Rather, in the current subsection there is a focus on certain questions that arise specifically when considering discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, including: (a) the extent to which clothing and other physical expressions of religion or belief can constitute legitimate grounds for different treatment; (b) the limits to which religious or belief communities are allowed 985 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and others v. Russia, Application No. 302/02, Judgment, 10 June 2010. 986 European Court of Human Rights, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and others v. Hungary, Application No. 70945/11 and others, Judgment, 8 April 2014. 987 European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Strasbourg, 2021), para. 163. This principle is well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, see, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v. Moldova, Application No. 45701/99, Judgment, 13 December 2001, para. 105. 988 European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, para. 163. 989 European Court of Human Rights, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and others v. Austria, Application No. 40825/98, Judgment, 31 July 2008, para. 62. See also European Court of Human Rights, Genov v. Bulgaria, Application No. 40524/08, Judgment, 23 March 2017, para. 35. 990 European Court of Human Rights, İzzettin Doğan and others v. Turkey, Application No. 62649/10, Judgment, 26 April 2016, para. 127; and European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, para. 165. 991 European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, para. 165. 992 European Court of Human Rights, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and others v. Austria, Application No. 40825/98, Judgment, 31 July 2008, para. 79; European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, para. 168. 143