NORWAY: The Supreme Court dismisses all accusations against Jehovah’s Witnesses
NO to denial of state subsidies. NO to deregistration. NO evidence of violations of children’s rights. NO violations of human rights in cases of exclusion from the community and social distancing.
Supreme Court of Norway (30.04.2026) – “The decisions to deny Jehovah’s Witnesses state subsidies and registration are invalid.
Supreme Court judgment of 29 April 2026, HR-2026-1009-A, (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against the judgment of Borgarting Court of Appeal of 14 March 2025.
The State, represented by the Ministry of Children and Families (the Attorney General, represented by lawyer Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses (lawyer Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal), The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)
The case concerns the validity of five decisions refusing state subsidies and one decision to deregister Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious community, as well as the refusal of re-registration. The State argued that the religious community’s practice of social exclusion violates children’s rights and members’ right to freely withdraw from the community, cf. Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Supreme Court outlined the organisation and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the practice of exclusion and social ostracism of former members, and the legal framework under the Religious Communities Act and freedom of religion under the ECHR.
The Court emphasised that the threshold for refusing state subsidies and registration is high, and that the provisions of Section 6 must be interpreted in light of, inter alia, the autonomy of religious communities under Article 9 of the ECHR, cf. Article 11.
With regard to children’s rights, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the State had not presented sufficient evidence to show that Jehovah’s Witnesses, in practice, subject underage members to psychological abuse or negative social control of such a serious nature as to violate children’s legally protected rights. The Court emphasised the internal guidelines for dealing with minors, that family ties are not broken, and that there was no documented evidence of the actual extent of the exclusion of children.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered whether the practice of social ostracism of former members infringes members’ right to freely withdraw from the organisation. The Court held that Jehovah’s Witnesses meet the requirement for free and unconditional withdrawal under Section 2 of the Religious Communities Act.
A majority of three judges found that the practice of excommunication does not constitute undue pressure on members in contravention of Article 9 of the ECHR. Among other things, emphasis was placed on the fact that the practice is rooted in the religious community’s doctrine, is known to members when they join, and does not involve direct pressure, coercion or threats.
The practice of excommunication does not apply to family members living in the same household. Family ties are not severed for family members living outside the household. The majority therefore found that the conditions for refusing state subsidies and deregistration under Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act were not met.
The decisions to refuse subsidies and to deregister the community could therefore not be upheld.
Two judges dissented on the question of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses subject their members to undue pressure to leave the organisation, thereby infringing on members’ right to freely withdraw. The minority placed particular emphasis on the fact that shunning can lead to a loss of contact with family members, particularly for minors. Emphasis was also placed on the fact that shunning is the result of a rule-based requirement and is intended to be a tangible consequence for those who leave. The minority therefore considered that the conditions for refusing state subsidies and registration under Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act were met. The minority further concluded that the decision to refuse registration constituted an interference with freedom of religion under Article 9(1) of the ECHR, but that the interference was justified. The minority held that the decisions did not contravene the protection against discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR or the protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR.
The judgment clarifies the threshold for refusing state subsidies and registration of religious communities, and how the rules are to be assessed against the freedom of religion under the ECHR.
Read the Supreme Court’s judgment (PDF)
Area of law: Religious Communities Act. Freedom of religion. ECHR. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Key paragraphs: 59–60, 62–63, 67–71, 85, 90, 102–104, 108, 113–117, 120, 123, 128, 130, 134–135, 137–138, 142–143, 169–173, 198–199, 211–212, 220–221
Judges: Falkanger, Arntzen, Hellerslia, Poulsen, Steen”
HRWF Short Comment
See our 8-page Amicus Curiae to the Supreme Court in the case Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Norway
Translation by Human Rights Without Frontiers
Emphasis in the text by Human Rights Without Frontiers
Photo:The Supreme Court of Norway. Credits.
Further reading about FORB in Norway on HRWF website
Post Views: 3,594