DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT OF PUBLIC-RELIGIOUS RELATIONS

The article analyzes the mechanism of ensuring the rights in the field of religion and the settlement of state-religious relations, which is the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Examples of ECHR decisions are given, their analysis and recommendations for application in the national legislation are given. It has been established that international standards, in general, and the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, provide for the existence of "limits of freedom of discretion", which to a certain extent allow states to adopt laws and apply political means that may vary, depending on the country's historical and cultural heritage. Despite the fact that the limits of freedom of discretion must be taken into account, they should not be understood so widely that it would distort the very essence of human rights values. Although the laws of different states should not be the same, and it should have some flexibility, nevertheless, such flexibility, in turn, must be consistent with important fundamental rights. The article establishes that international law provides for four concrete forms of realization of the right to freedom of religion: worship (or deportation) of worship, observance (or practice) of religious life, fulfillment of religious regulations and education. They are exhaustive. The generalization of the decisions of the European Court concerning the administrative regulation of the religious sphere by the state is carried out: the state may restrict the freedom of conscience of citizens solely on the grounds of social necessity, legitimacy and expediency, for example, public order, health or morals, protection of the rights and freedoms of others; the law of the state must be clear and guarantee legal protection against arbitrary interference by public authorities; when exercising regulatory powers, the state must adhere to neutrality and impartiality in relations with various religious organizations; the state should not take measures to ensure that all religious communities are subordinated to a single government; while respecting neutrality, the state still has the obligation to ensure the protection of the rights of religious organizations, their property and legal activities, and the state authorities are obliged to pay special attention to the reassurance and possible settlement of interreligious conflicts; the state has no right to impose on a person the obligation to support the state or any other religious organization financially through the payment of taxes or otherwise; the state must apply all resources to ensure that citizens can freely practice their religion, such as ensuring the meeting of prisoners with clerics; the state has no right to place on religious organizations the fulfillment of their own functions.