In Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (2010) the European Court found no evidence that the community coerced families to break up, saying estrangement flowing from a believer's 'independent and free decision' cannot be attributed to the religion; that passage concerned relatives of converts, and the Norwegian Supreme Court noted in 2026 that the Strasbourg court has not ruled on the shunning of former members.
Claim ID claim-shunning-echr-moscow-2010-limitsConcerns 10 June 2010Context
The organisation’s position or later explanation: The FAQ cites former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque's view that courts have found the practice lawful.
10 June 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.
Provenance and verification note for European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, Judgment (First Section), paras 109-113
Confidence note. 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.
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID.src-echr-2010-0610-jw-moscow-v-russia
29 April 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“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn.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'.
Provenance and verification note 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)
Confidence note. 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
Scan provenance. Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID.src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court
A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/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.