CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 juin 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 241 June 2020 Stavropoulos and Others v. Greece - 52484/18 Judgment 25.6.2020 [Section I] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Birth certificate revealing parents’ choice not to christen their child: violation Facts – The three applicants are parents and daughter. The daughter’s forename was entered into the birth record with the handwritten addition, contained in brackets, of an abbreviation of the word “naming” (ονοματοδοσία). Moreover, the section concerning christening that is included in the birth registration act was left blank. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the application for the annulment of the birth registration of the daughter as inadmissible. Law – Article 9: The note “naming” next to the daughter’s first name and the fact that the section concerning christening had been left blank implied that the parents had chosen not to have her christened. Such information appearing in a public document issued by the State constituted an interference with the right of all of the applicants not to be obliged to manifest their beliefs. Given the frequent use of the birth certificate, implying one’s religious beliefs in it exposed the bearers to the risk of discriminatory situations in their dealings with administrative authorities. This interference was not prescribed by law. Indeed, the relevant domestic-law provision provided that an individual acquired his or her first name by naming. Therefore, it did not follow, either from that law or from any other piece of domestic legislation brought to the attention of the Court, that registrars needed to write the word “naming” next to the first names of new-born children acquiring their names by the civil act of naming, as opposed to by christening. The interference in issue had resulted from the widespread practice of the registry offices. Conclusion : violation (unanimously) Article 41: EUR 10,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes