## Facts

- Ingrid Hoffmann and her husband (S.) married as Roman Catholics; their two children were baptized Catholic.
- Hoffmann later left the Catholic Church and became a Jehovah’s Witness.
- After Hoffmann initiated divorce proceedings and left the marital home with the children, an Austrian district court divorced the parties and granted Hoffmann custody.
- A court expert found both parents fit; the children were more emotionally secure with the mother, and a transfer of custody could harm them.
- The district court acknowledged possible social difficulties linked to Jehovah’s Witness practices but considered them manageable; it noted emergency medical treatment could be authorized despite religious objections.
- The regional court affirmed the custody award to Hoffmann.
- The Austrian Supreme Court reversed and awarded custody to the father, emphasizing statutory rules on children’s religious upbringing and treating Hoffmann’s intention to raise the children as Jehovah’s Witnesses as a key factor.
- The Supreme Court cited concerns associated with the faith (including blood transfusions, certain holidays, and minority status) and gave reduced weight to the lower courts’ welfare findings.

## Issues

1. Whether transferring custody from the mother to the father based predominantly on the mother’s Jehovah’s Witness affiliation constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether the same custody transfer violated Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, alone or read with Article 14, due to its connection to religious education.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights held there was a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8.
- The Court found the custody change interfered with the applicant’s family life.
- Although protecting the child’s best interests and pursuing aims linked to domestic religious-education rules could be legitimate, the Austrian Supreme Court gave decisive weight to the applicant’s religion without concrete evidence of harm to the children.
- The Court did not separately examine the complaints under Article 9 or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 because the discrimination finding resolved the core claim.

## Legal Principles

- A difference in treatment based on religion violates Article 14 unless it has an objective and reasonable justification: a legitimate aim and proportional means.
- In custody matters, the child’s best interests may be a legitimate aim, but custody cannot be denied solely or decisively because a parent belongs to a religious group.
- Religious considerations may be assessed in child-welfare analysis, but the state must have concrete, direct evidence that a parent’s religious practices negatively affect the child’s growth or daily life before treating religion as determinative.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that Austria discriminated in the enjoyment of family life by transferring custody primarily due to the mother’s Jehovah’s Witness affiliation, without concrete evidence that her religion harmed the children, and thus violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.


Hoffmann v. Austria, 225 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 45 (1993)