A ban on door-to-door practices before the ECHR

About the case of Velev and others v. Bulgaria (no. 56007/21[1] ), pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This is an automatic translation that will be reviewed.

It's not uncommon for an unexpected visitor to knock or ring at the door of a home. It could be an independent salesperson, an election candidate or a Christian missionary. Whether it's to promote a product, a political program or your faith, door-to-door canvassing is perfectly legal. It is protected by the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of missionaries, door-to-door canvassing is doubly protected, as it falls within the right to manifest one's religion (article 9). 

Bulgaria has invoked another right, the right to respect for one's home (article 8), to justify a ban on religious door-to-door canvassing. For some years now, Bulgarian municipalities have been banning and punishing door-to-door canvassing for religious reasons. This is the case in Choumen, a town in the north-east of the country. Door-to-door canvassing is permitted for any reason, except religious. It is therefore permitted to knock or ring the doorbell of the town's 100,000 inhabitants to sell a vacuum cleaner or make-up, but it is forbidden to hand out a Bible or a pious image.

A violation of missionary freedoms

Choumen's 2016 municipal ordinance purports to ban an age-old practice. Thus, Jesus Christ demands in the Gospel to make disciples of all nations and to go and find people for this purpose directly in their homes^[2] . Door-to-door canvassing was practiced by the first Christians, who went "from house to house", as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles^[3] . For this reason, the ban on this practice in Choumen was challenged in court by believers, but without success. Now it's up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to decide: can a public authority ban door-to-door canvassing?

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has already defended at the ECHR the case of a Christian unjustly condemned in Greece for "proselytizing". We explained then, notably in this video, that banning proselytism violated freedom of expression and religion. The ECLJ is once again a third party in the case of Velev et al. v. Bulgaria, and submitted written observations to the ECHR on July 22, 2024. We have shown that door-to-door canvassing is a human right, based on the most recent case law.

In 2022, for example, the ECHR reaffirmed that, by practicing door-to-door canvassing, "believers demonstrate their willingness to conform strictly to the religious doctrine they profess, and their freedom to do so is guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention[4] ". In 2023, it summarized its case law on the subject as follows: "in the absence of evidence of coercion or undue pressure, the Court has affirmed the right (...) to engage in individual evangelism and door-to-door preaching[5] ". Prohibiting door-to-door preaching on religious grounds is not only contrary to European case law, but also to that of the United Nations Human Rights Committee^[6] .

What about the rights of others?

The ban on door-to-door preaching for religious reasons also violates the rights of the person subjected to it. In the jurisprudence of the ECHR, "the freedom to receive information (...) essentially prohibits a government from preventing someone from receiving information which others aspire to or may consent to provide"^[7] . Similarly, if the ECHR recognizes the importance of the "right to try to convince one's neighbor", it is also so that this "neighbor" can exercise his or her "freedom to change religion", enshrined in article 9 of the European Convention^[8] .

The need for proselytizing to enable people to freely exercise their freedom to change religion is attested to by numerous testimonials, such as those in the ECLJ report "From Islam to Christ". One of them recounts: "Personally, I converted because someone dared to offer me the Gospels in the street (...). It was a revelation, because everyone had told me bad things about Christianity, in the media and in my Muslim circle. There was a contempt for Christians and Jews (...). The beauty of God was hidden from me". As for abuse, it can be punished by other penal qualifications, adapted to each situation.

As far as respect for people's homes is concerned, the Bulgarian government's analysis is based on a statist logic. It is not up to the public authorities to consider that door-to-door canvassing is a nuisance, and consequently to prohibit its practice. If a person feels disturbed by door-to-door sales, there are several ways to avoid being disturbed: not answering the visitor, politely dismissing him or her, or affixing a "stop canvassing" sticker at the entrance to the home. The role of the public authorities is to punish visitors who enter a home against the will of its occupant[9] .

________________

[1] The application was lodged on November 12, 2021 and communicated by the Court on February 13, 2024.

[2] Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 28: 19-20 and chapter 7: 11-13. 

[3] Acts of the Apostles, chapter 5:42 and chapter 20:20.

[4] ECHR, Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, no.^os 32401/10 and 19 others, June 7, 2022, § 172.

[5] ECHR, Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, March 7, 2023, § 40. The Court cites the following judgment: Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, June 10, 2010, § 122.

[6] See: Human Rights Committee, Jaarey Suleymanova and Gulnaz Israfilova v. Azerbaijan, CCPR/C/133/D/3061/2017, February 3, 2022; Vladimir Adyrkhayev, Behruz Solikhov and the Jehovah's Witnesses Religious Association of Dushanbe v. Tajikistan, CCPR/C/135/D/2483/2014, November 25, 2022.

[7] Leander v. Sweden, no. 9248/81, March 26, 1987, § 74. This has been reaffirmed in several more recent Grand Chamber judgments, for example: Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, 3 April 2012, § 83.

[8] Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 52435/99, April 12, 2007. See also: Kokkinakis, op. cit, § 31; 43082/14, § 41.

[9] See ECHR, Taganrog LRO, op. cit., § 183. See also the U.S. Supreme Court's demonstration in Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 US 141, May 3, 1943.