CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 24 May 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47429/09 Galina Anatolyevna PEROVA and Others against Russia lodged on 26 August 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant is Ms Galina Anatolyevna Perova, born in 1978. The second applicant is Mr Aleksey Vladimirovich Perov, born in 1967. The third applicant is David Alekseyevich Perov, born in 2000. The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the settlement of Gribanovskiy in the Voronezh Region. They are represented before the Court by Ms   O.   Gnezdilova, a lawyer practicing in Voronezh. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background information The first and second applicants are spouses and are the parents of the third applicant. The second applicant is a minister of the Community of Christ. In 2007, having reached the age of seven, the third applicant was enrolled in municipal school no. 3 of the settlement of Gribanovskiy (“the school”). The first applicant informed the teacher in charge of the new intake (“the teacher”) that her son was Protestant, not Orthodox Christian. On 1 September 2007 the applicants went to the school to attend the “first day of school” ceremony for the new intake of pupils. After the ceremony, most of the new pupils’ parents stayed on for a parent-teacher meeting, but the first and second applicants had to leave early. It later transpired that it had been decided at the meeting to invite Mr M., an Orthodox priest and parent of one of the new pupils, to perform the rite of “sanctification” («освящение») of the classroom. 2.     Events of 3 September 2007 On the morning of 3 September 2007, the day on which regular schooling was due to begin, the second applicant accompanied the third applicant to the school and then left; the third applicant proceeded to his classroom.   At 8 a.m. the “sanctification” rite began in the presence of nineteen new pupils, the teacher, some of the parents and Mr M. The teacher told Mr M. that one of the children was “of a different faith” to which Mr M. replied that it was all right for that child to be present during the rite. Mr M., wearing a cassock, distributed small paper icons around the classroom and sang prayers in Church Slavonic. Candles were lit; Mr M. used a censer to burn incense and sprinkled the classroom with “holy water”. Adults and children made the sign of the cross. Mr M. then invited the children to kiss his cross and they lined up to do so. The third applicant felt uneasy in this environment; other children allegedly put pressure on him, forcing him to kiss the cross, and later beat him for his failure to make the sign of the cross “like everyone else”. The ceremony lasted between fifteen and twenty minutes. The second applicant came back to the school to take his son home and discovered him hiding under a staircase and crying. Later the boy explained that the rite in the classroom had caused him distress. 3.     The applicants’ complaints On 3 September 2007 the second applicant lodged a complaint about the incident with the prosecutor’s office of the Voronezh Region (“the prosecutor’s office”) requesting that a criminal investigation be opened into the alleged beating of the third applicant by his classmates. On 4 September 2007 the first applicant complained to the school administration that her son had been beaten by his classmates. The third applicant was transferred to another class and granted a week off school. On the same day the first applicant lodged a complaint with the local department of education against the school administration. On 12 September 2007 the prosecutor’s office stated that the applicants’ right to freedom of religion had been violated and issued an instruction ordering the school principal to rectify the breaches of law. The prosecutor’s office repeatedly dismissed the second applicant’s requests that criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of the third applicant’s beatings. On 14 September 2007 the local department of education officially reprimanded the school principal for breaching a pupil’s constitutional right to freedom of religion. 4.     Civil proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage On 31 October 2007 the applicants lodged a civil claim against the school with the Gribanovskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region (“the District Court”) seeking compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. On 26 December 2007 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending examination of a concurrent civil dispute. The applicants appealed against the ruling. On 14 February 2008 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the regional court”) overturned the ruling of 26 December 2007, noting that there had been no concurrent civil proceedings pending. On 4 December 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in full. It pointed out that the rite had taken place outside school hours, that it had been the pupils’ parents who had volunteered to organise it, and that the allegations concerning the beating had not been substantiated. The District Court found, inter alia, as follows: “It has been established at the court hearing that [the fact of] holding this rite did not breach David Perov’s rights as a child or [the rights] of his parents. The rite of sanctification is of a general nature, and according to [Russian] Orthodox doctrine is not one of the acts connected to a specific individual such as baptism, confirmation, communion, and confession, for example. Therefore, objectively [speaking], there could be no violation of rights and freedoms [or] defamation or damage to dignity. Moreover, in this case holding the rite of sanctifying the classroom in the aforementioned circumstances does not contradict the requirements of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 55 of the Russian Constitution. ... Holding the rite of sanctification of the classroom did not breach the right of Mr   A.   Perov and Ms G. Perova as parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical beliefs (Article   2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights) because the respondent, municipal school no. 3 of Gribanovskiy, did not in any way prevent the plaintiffs from ensuring the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical beliefs; the plaintiffs have not provided the court with any proof to that effect.” On 26 February 2009 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the District Court’s judgment in full. It reasoned, in particular, as follows: “Failure to notify David Perov’s parents of the forthcoming religious rite was an omission on the part of the class teacher but does not demonstrate any errors in the adopted [first-instance] judgment because the plaintiffs have not proven that their right to freedom of religion and that of their child was breached by the mere fact of holding the rite of [Russian] Orthodox sanctification of the classroom. Moreover, the teacher in question has already been subjected to disciplinary measures for failing to notify the parents of David Perov [of the upcoming rite]. However, there was nothing stopping the parents of David Perov from being with their child on the first day of the new school year and, if need be, following their religious conviction by taking him out [of the classroom] for the duration of the [Russian] Orthodox rite of sanctification of the classroom.” COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the third applicant was forced to take part in a religious ceremony and that the first and second applicants’ right to ensure their son’s education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions was not respected.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 9 of the Convention on account of the events of 3 September 2007? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law”? Did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article   9   §   2 of the Convention? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention read in the light of Article 9 of the Convention (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark , 7 December 1976, § 52, Series   A   no. 23)? In particular, was the fact of holding a religious rite in a municipal school compatible with the State’s obligation not to pursue any form of indoctrination that might be regarded as a failure to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen , cited above, § 53)?