Background

In Figel’ v Slovakia [2025] ECHR Application no. 12131/21 Dr Ján Figel’, a former EU Commissioner and Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU, challenged the total ban on religious services imposed by the Slovak Government in 2021 as part of its COVID-19 restrictions; in response, the Slovak Bishop’s Conference had suspended the holding of public religious services until further notice [1]. He complained that preventing him from attending public religious services had violated his rights under Article 9 of the Convention, that the interference in question had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society [2]. As a practising Roman Catholic accustomed to attending religious services three times per week, he had been personally and directly affected by the contested measures because he was a Slovak national, lived within the jurisdiction of Slovakia and had not been able to attend public religious services [4].

The Government responded that Dr Figel’ had failed in his application to connect the restrictions to his individual situation or to describe their effects on Article 9 rights and that his complaint was, in fact, an actio popularis – a suit brought by a third party in the interests of the public as a whole. Further, as of April 2021, the various restrictions had been applied on a regional basis according to the actual epidemiological situation. Alternatively, they argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded [3].

Dr Figel’ maintained his complaint. He described growing up as a Christian during the communist regime, his career as one of the founders of the Slovak Christian-Democratic Movement and the importance of his faith to him. He was a practising Catholic, and before the imposition of the restrictions, he had attended services three times per week. He had been personally and directly affected by the contested measures because he was a Slovak national, lived within the jurisdiction of Slovakia and had not been able to attend public religious services [4].

The judgment

The Court reiterated that the Convention did not envisage the bringing of an actio popularis for the interpretation of Convention rights. Though it was open to a person to contend that a law violated his or her rights, the Convention did not permit individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they considered that it might contravene the Convention without having been directly affected by it [6]. In order to be able to claim victim status, an applicant had to produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation would occur that affected him or her personally; mere suspicion or conjecture was not enough [7].

In the present case, the Court agreed with the Government that Dr Figel’s application had focused primarily on the description and legal analysis of the impugned measures without providing any information about his personal situation beyond the assertion that he could not attend public religious services. Moreover,

“… the information provided in his observations was more about the authenticity and validity of his beliefs, which were not challenged by the Government, than about the likelihood of a violation affecting him personally” [8].

He did not, for example, argue that he would have faced prosecution if he had attended a public religious service. Nor did he specify how the contested measures applied to the region where he lived, even though the measures complained of were gradually adjusted and regularly updated in an attempt to reflect the actual sanitary situation [9].

The Court concluded that the application constituted an actio popularis and that Dr Figel’ could not be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention [11]. His complaint was therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and had to be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. [12]. The Court, unanimously, declared the application inadmissible.