ClaimShunning and familyverified2010sContext

Expulsión y familia · Claim record

En Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (2010), el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos no halló pruebas de que la comunidad obligara a las familias a romperse, y afirmó que el distanciamiento que nace de la 'decisión independiente y libre' de un creyente no puede atribuirse a la religión; ese pasaje se refería a los parientes de personas convertidas, y el Tribunal Supremo de Noruega señaló en 2026 que el tribunal de Estrasburgo no se ha pronunciado sobre el ostracismo aplicado a los exmiembros.

Claim ID claim-shunning-echr-moscow-2010-limitsConcerns 10 de junio de 2010Contexto

La afirmación y sus pruebas

Contexto · 10 de junio de 2010 Verificado

En Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (2010), el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos no halló pruebas de que la comunidad obligara a las familias a romperse, y afirmó que el distanciamiento que nace de la 'decisión independiente y libre' de un creyente no puede atribuirse a la religión; ese pasaje se refería a los parientes de personas convertidas, y el Tribunal Supremo de Noruega señaló en 2026 que el tribunal de Estrasburgo no se ha pronunciado sobre el ostracismo aplicado a los exmiembros. Source: European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, 10 de junio de 2010Source: Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, 29 de abril de 2026

La posición de la organización o su explicación posterior: Las preguntas frecuentes citan la opinión de Pinto de Albuquerque, antiguo juez del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, de que los tribunales han considerado lícita esta práctica.

Mostrar las pruebas (2 fuentes)
Registro público oficial Verificado

European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, “Judgment (First Section), paras 109-113”

10 de junio de 2010 · paras 109-113 · European Court of Human Rights

“as long as self-dedication to religious matters is the product of the believer’s independent and free decision and however unhappy his or her family members may be about that decision, the ensuing estrangement cannot be taken to mean that the religion caused the break-up in the family.”

Para 110: 'The domestic courts did not give examples of any forceful or threatening action on the part of the applicant community calculated to break the families of its members apart.' The passage concerns complaints by non-Witness relatives of converts, not the shunning of ex-members; the Norwegian Supreme Court (2026, para 110) said the ECtHR had not, to its knowledge, ruled on shunning of former members.

Nota de procedencia y verificación for European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, Judgment (First Section), paras 109-113

Nota de confianza. HUDOC document body opened via the HUDOC conversion endpoint (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/html/body?library=ECHR&id=001-99221); paragraphs 109-113 read verbatim.

Consultado. 19 de septiembre de 2026 · Identificador de la fuente. src-echr-2010-0610-jw-moscow-v-russia

Registro público oficial Verificado

Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, “The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)”

29 de abril de 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett

“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”

3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.

Nota de procedencia y verificación for Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)

Nota de confianza. Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf

Procedencia del escaneo. Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).

Consultado. 19 de septiembre de 2026 · Identificador de la fuente. src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court

Página de la afirmación Corregir o actualizar

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/es/evidence/claim-shunning-echr-moscow-2010-limits/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.