ClaimShunning and familyverified2010sContext

Ostracismo e família · Claim record

No caso Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (2010), o Tribunal Europeu não encontrou evidência de que a comunidade coagisse famílias a se separar, afirmando que o distanciamento decorrente da 'decisão independente e livre' de um crente não pode ser atribuído à religião; essa passagem dizia respeito a parentes de convertidos, e o Supremo Tribunal da Noruega observou em 2026 que o tribunal de Estrasburgo não se pronunciou sobre o ostracismo de ex-membros.

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

A afirmação e as suas provas

Contexto · 10 de junho de 2010 Verificado

No caso Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (2010), o Tribunal Europeu não encontrou evidência de que a comunidade coagisse famílias a se separar, afirmando que o distanciamento decorrente da 'decisão independente e livre' de um crente não pode ser atribuído à religião; essa passagem dizia respeito a parentes de convertidos, e o Supremo Tribunal da Noruega observou em 2026 que o tribunal de Estrasburgo não se pronunciou sobre o ostracismo de ex-membros. Source: European Court of Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, 10 de junho 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

A posição da organização ou explicação posterior: As perguntas frequentes citam a opinião do ex-juiz do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos Pinto de Albuquerque de que os tribunais consideraram a prática lícita.

Mostrar as provas (2 fontes)
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 junho 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 procedência e verificação 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 confiança. 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 em. 19 de setembro de 2026 · Identificador da fonte. 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 procedência e verificação 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 confiança. 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

Procedência da digitalização. Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).

Consultado em. 19 de setembro de 2026 · Identificador da fonte. src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court

Página da afirmação Corrigir ou atualizar

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/pt-br/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.