This case note examines the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Congregazione cristiana dei Testimoni di Geova v. Italy, delivered on 11 June 2026, highlighting its systemic relevance for Italian law on religion. The judgment does not establish a subjective right of religious denominations to obtain an agreement (intesa) under Article 8(3) of the Italian Constitution, nor does it require Parliament automatically to approve a text negotiated by the Government. It does, however, censure the prolonged institutional inertia that left a recognised religious denomination for decades in a state of suspension, without a clear decision, transparent criteria, or effective remedies. From this perspective, the Court reframes the failure to complete the agreement as an issue of religious non-discrimination, read in conjunction with freedom of religion and with the proprietary interests connected to access to the otto per mille system. The note argues that the judgment invites a reconsideration of the Italian system of agreements, not by making it automatic or rigid, but by developing more transparent, accountable, and inclusive procedures, capable of preventing political discretion from turning into an absence of responsibility.
La nota esamina la sentenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo Congregazione cristiana dei Testimoni di Geova c. Italia, dell’11 giugno 2026, mettendone in luce il rilievo sistematico per il diritto ecclesiastico italiano. La decisione non afferma l’esistenza di un diritto soggettivo delle confessioni religiose a ottenere un’intesa ai sensi dell’art. 8, terzo comma, Cost., né impone al Parlamento l’approvazione automatica del testo negoziato dal Governo. Essa censura, tuttavia, la protratta inerzia istituzionale che ha lasciato per decenni una confessione religiosa riconosciuta in una condizione di sospensione, priva di una decisione chiara, di criteri trasparenti e di rimedi effettivi. In questa prospettiva, la Corte riconduce il mancato completamento dell’intesa al tema della non discriminazione religiosa, in combinato disposto con la libertà di religione e con la tutela patrimoniale connessa all’accesso all’otto per mille. La nota sottolinea come la sentenza inviti a ripensare il sistema italiano delle intese non in senso automatico o irrigidito, ma attraverso procedure più trasparenti, responsabili e inclusive, capaci di evitare che la discrezionalità politica si trasformi in assenza di responsabilità.
Testimoni di Geova c. Italia: la vera novità non è che i Testimoni di Geova abbiano vinto, ma che la politica ha perso
Consorti, Pierluigi
2026-01-01
Abstract
This case note examines the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Congregazione cristiana dei Testimoni di Geova v. Italy, delivered on 11 June 2026, highlighting its systemic relevance for Italian law on religion. The judgment does not establish a subjective right of religious denominations to obtain an agreement (intesa) under Article 8(3) of the Italian Constitution, nor does it require Parliament automatically to approve a text negotiated by the Government. It does, however, censure the prolonged institutional inertia that left a recognised religious denomination for decades in a state of suspension, without a clear decision, transparent criteria, or effective remedies. From this perspective, the Court reframes the failure to complete the agreement as an issue of religious non-discrimination, read in conjunction with freedom of religion and with the proprietary interests connected to access to the otto per mille system. The note argues that the judgment invites a reconsideration of the Italian system of agreements, not by making it automatic or rigid, but by developing more transparent, accountable, and inclusive procedures, capable of preventing political discretion from turning into an absence of responsibility.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


