CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 novembre 2002

.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 47 November 2002 Vergos v. Greece (dec.) - 65501/01 Decision 21.11.2002 [Section I] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Refusal to grant a building permit for place of worship: admissible The applicant belonged to the religious community of “True Orthodox Christians” (“TOC”), who observe the Julian calendar for religious feasts. In June 1991, the applicant applied to the planning authorities for permission to build a house of prayer for the TOC on his land. Permission was, and continues to be, refused. In January 1992, the planning authorities refused permission on the basis of a prefectorial decision suspending planning permission in the area in the interest of protecting antiquities. In November 1993, the authorities informed the applicant that in order to obtain planning permission he must “define the area” within the meaning of the applicable rules. The application submitted in compliance with that requirement was refused by the Mayor in 1995; the decision stated that the applicant was the only inhabitant of the village to belong to the community of TOC, that construction of the house of prayer might provoke the religious feelings of other Christians and thus lead to disruption, that such a house already existed in the neighbouring village and that the applicant's land was not appropriate for such construction. The action which the applicant brought against that decision was dismissed at first instance in 1995, whereupon the applicant brought the matter before the Council of State. By judgment of July 2000, the Council of State dismissed the action on the ground that, as the applicant was the only follower of the TOC in his village, there was no social need to justify altering the existing district plan by granting permission for the construction of a house of prayer such as that sought. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 (reasonable time) and 9.   © 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