CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sCEDB100B { width:137.09pt; display:inline-block } .s100D1E5 { width:50.22pt; display:inline-block } .s2CF788F1 { width:132.09pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11130/18 UNION OF ATHEISTS against Greece   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   February 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Lətif Hüseynov , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   11130/18) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 February 2018 by a Greek association, the Union of Atheists (“the applicant association”), which is based in Athens and was represented by Mr V. Sotiropoulos, a   lawyer practising in Athens; the decisions to give notice of the complaints under Article 9 in conjunction with Article 14 and under Article 13 of the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms   N.   Marioli and by Mrs   A.   Magrippi, Legal Representative A at the State Legal Council, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant association; the comments submitted by the Ordo Iuris Institute, which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the inability of the applicant association to prevent the inclusion of passages allegedly insulting atheism in the relevant chapter in the religious education textbook, while similar requests of the Orthodox Church were granted. 2.     The applicant association submitted two memoranda to the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs that were not taken into account, but the relevant chapter on atheism remained unchanged. On 17 July 2017 it lodged an application with the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC") for the annulment of: a) two decisions of the Minister of Education, Research and Religious Affairs of 13 June 2017 and 16 June 2017 determining, respectively, the religious education programme for high school and for primary and middle school, b) two decisions dated 29 May 2017 by which “Religious education materials” were approved for distribution to primary and high school students for the school year 2017-2018, c) any other actions to the same effect. It challenged the Minister’s decisions on the grounds that they did not provide for an objective, critical and pluralist religious education curriculum, that the exemption procedure was not legal and that the applicant association had been discriminated against because the Greek Orthodox Church had participated in defining the content of the curriculum whereas its own contribution had been rejected. 3.     By decisions nos. 1749/2019 and 1750/2019 published on 20   September 2019, the SAC accepted the applications for annulment against the ministerial decisions that had been lodged by other persons. It annulled the ministerial decisions holding they were unconstitutional. In particular Article 16 of the Constitution provided for the development of religious conscience, which meant the development of an Orthodox Christian conscience, given that that was the dominant religion in Greece. The State was not prevented from including information of a religious nature, that is to say information on different religions, in the religious education curriculum, but the religious education course still had to be of a denominational nature and should aim to develop an Orthodox Christian conscience in its students. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore accepted the applications for annulment on the grounds that the content of the curriculum was not directed exclusively towards Orthodox Christian students as it should have been, but placed special emphasis on the elements of the dominant religion that were shared with other religions and on social issues. The content of the course was therefore contrary to the Constitution. 4.     On the same date, the SAC published decision no. 1752/2019 on the applicant’s application for annulment. It held that the proceedings should be terminated in respect of the decisions relating to “Religious education materials” for the 2017-2018 school year, given that that school year had ended on 31 August 2018 and the applicant association had failed to request the continuation of the trial, for which they should then have cited a special legal interest. As regards the two decisions of the Minister of Education, Research and Religious Affairs dated 13 and 16 June 2017, they had already been annulled ex tunc by decisions nos.   1479/2019 and 1750/2019 following applications for annulment that had been heard on the same date as that of the applicant association. There was therefore no longer any need to examine the applicant association’s application for annulment. 5.     Relying on Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant association complained that it had been unable to prevent the inclusion of passages allegedly insulting atheism in the relevant chapter in the religious education textbook for second year high school students as compared to the granting of the requests concerning the content of the course that were made by the Orthodox Church. It further complained that it had not had an effective remedy for its complaints at its disposal. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 6.     The Government objected, at the outset, that the applicant association had not exhausted domestic remedies, as it had failed to apply, inter alia , for the suspension of the enforcement of the above-mentioned ministerial decisions, for the continuation of the trial for the acts whose validity had expired, or for an action for compensation under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code. They further asserted that, given the annulment of the contested ministerial decisions on the application of other parties, the applicant association no longer had victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Following the annulment of the contested ministerial decisions, new decisions were taken by the Deputy Minister for Education and Religious Affairs in March 2020, bringing in the new school programme for primary and high school religious education as from the 2020-2021 school year. The applicant association has not lodged an application for the annulment of the new acts. 7.     The applicant association disagreed and maintained its complaints. 8.     The Court does not consider it necessary to address all objections to the admissibility of the application lodged by the Government as it considers that there is no objective justification to continue to examine these complaints and that it is thus appropriate to apply Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention which allows it to “strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ...the matter has been resolved...”. 9.     To be able to conclude that this provision applies, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, it must ask whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicants still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed ( see Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 48, 7 December 2007, and Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002). 10.     Concerning the first question, the Court notes that the ministerial decisions determining the religious education programme for high school and for primary and middle school were annulled ex tunc by decisions nos.   1749/2019 and 1750/2019 of the SAC published on 20 September 2019. New decisions were then taken by the Deputy Minister for Education and Religious Affairs in March 2020, bringing in the new school programme for primary and high school religious education as from the 2020-2021 school year. It follows that the circumstances complained of no longer pertain. 11.     As regards the second question, in so far as the applicant association has complained about the process of adopting the relevant ministerial decisions and its lack of participation, as opposed to the participation of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Court notes that the annulment ex tunc of the decisions determining the religious education programme would be sufficient to redress the possible effects of the situation of which the applicant association complained to the Court. The applicant association has not put forward any arguments as to other possible effects of the alleged violation of the Court which may not have been redressed. In any event, it still remains open to the applicant association to lodge an application for compensation with the domestic courts should the circumstances warrant it. 12.     Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court concludes that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met in the instant case. The matter giving rise to this complaint can therefore now be considered to be “resolved” within the meaning of Article   37 § 1 (b). Finally, no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine . 13.     Accordingly, this application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 March 2025.     Olga Chernishova   Peeter Roosma   Deputy Registrar   President