CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 décembre 1996
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-9052
- Date
- 18 décembre 1996
- Publication
- 18 décembre 1996
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleNo violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 9;No violation of P1-2;Violation of Art. 13+P1-2;Violation of Art. 13+9;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. December 1996 Efstratiou v. Greece - 24095/94 Judgment 18.12.1996 Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 Respect for parents' religious convictions Penalty of two days' and then one day's suspension from school for failure to take part in a school parade on grounds of religious beliefs of pupil's parents, who were Jehovah's Witnesses: no violation Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Manifest religion or belief Penalty of two days' and then one day's suspension from school for failure to take part in a school parade on grounds of pupil's religious beliefs: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Relied on by the parents only - unnecessary for Court to consider of its own motion whether the pupil's right to education had been respected. Not for Court to rule on Greek State's decisions as regards setting and planning of school curriculum, but Court surprised that pupils could be required on pain of suspension from school, even if only for two days, to parade outside school precincts on a holiday - nevertheless, nothing, either in purpose of parade or in arrangements for it, could offend applicants' pacifist convictions to an extent prohibited by second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Such commemorations of national events served, in their way, both pacifist objectives and the public interest - presence of military representatives at some of the parades which took place in Greece on day in question did not in itself alter nature of parades - furthermore, the obligation on the pupil did not deprive her parents of their right to enlighten and advise their children, to exercise with regard to their children natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their children on a path in line with the parents' own religious or philosophical convictions. Not for Court to rule on expediency of other educational methods which, in the applicants' view, would be better suited to aim of perpetuating historical memory among younger generation - however, penalty of suspension, which could not be regarded as an exclusively educational measure and might have some psychological impact on the pupil on whom it was imposed, was nevertheless of limited duration and did not require exclusion of pupil from school premises. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION Relied on by the pupil only - Court had already held that obligation to take part in school parade was not such as to offend the parents' religious convictions - impugned measure had therefore not amounted to an interference with pupil's right to freedom of religion. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two). III.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION Recapitulation of Court's case-law. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION The allegations of failure to comply with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9 of the Convention had been arguable, so that applicants had been entitled to have a remedy in order to raise them -on the other hand, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention contained no arguable allegation of a breach. Applicants had not been able to obtain a judicial decision that disciplinary measure of suspension from school was unlawful, which was a prerequisite for submitting a claim for compensation - the actions for damages referred to in Article 57 of Civil Code and section 105 of Introductory Law to Civil Code had therefore been of no avail to them - as to other remedies relied on, the Government had cited no instance of their use similar to the instant case, and their effectiveness had accordingly not been established. Conclusion : violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9 of the Convention, but not taken together with Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary   damage:   judgment   afforded   sufficient compensation. B.   Costs and expenses (before the Convention institutions): reimbursed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicants (unanimously).   © 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  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Date
- 18 décembre 1996
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-9052
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel