The government issued several warnings about the sect using adjectives like "destructive" and "pseudo-religious" to describe them, and the accusation was raised that their members are manipulated.
[1] The applicants claimed the Government's informational campaign was an unjustified interference under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom to exercise religion).
However, it found that the Government was authorised to characterise the applicant associations' movement as a "sect", "youth religion", "youth sect" and "psycho-sect" and was allowed to provide the public with adequate information about it.
[3] The Court held that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
Concerning allegations of violating Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the Court held that "the Government's statements as delimited by the Federal Constitutional Court, at least at the time they were made, did not entail overstepping the bounds of what a democratic State may regard as the public interest.