Key facts of the case - BF and BM are divorced with a child together; B. BF is a member of Hare Krishna while BM is a member of the state church.
At the time of divorce, custody over B was granted to BM, while BF became a visiting parent. Although BF was allowed to take B at times, he was denied the ability to take B into Hare Krishna meetings – BF contests this, claiming his religious freedom has curbed.

Main reasoning of the Court - The Directorate argues that although BF and B want to spend more time together, B should not be subject to the differing religious views of the parents. For the best of the child, BM, as the custodial parent, should have the right to choose which religion B is subjected to.
In regards to Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Directorate argues that based on Art. 9, nr. 2, BF’s freedom has not been violated. The decree to keep B away from Hare Krishna meetings is within national legislation, it is necessary and it is proportionate.