CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 131 June 2010 Dimitras and Others v. Greece - 42837/06, 3237/07, 3269/07 et al. Judgment 3.6.2010 [Section I] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Obligation to disclose religious convictions to avoid having to take religious oath in criminal proceedings: violation   Facts – In 2006 and 2007 the applicants were summoned to appear in court as witnesses or complainants in criminal proceedings. As such, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were asked to take the oath by placing their right hands on the Bible. Each time, they had to inform the authorities that they were not Orthodox Christians and preferred to make a solemn declaration instead, which they were authorised to do. In several cases, in the standard wording of the record of the proceedings concerned, the words “Orthodox Christian”, were crossed out and replaced by the handwritten references “atheist” and “made a solemn declaration”, for example. Some records were actually incorrect, stating “Orthodox Christian – took the oath”. Law – Article 9: It appeared that the applicants were considered as Orthodox Christians as a matter of course and had to explain that they were not, and in certain cases that they were atheists or Jews, in order to have the standard wording of the record of the proceedings changed. There had thus been interference with their religious freedom. The interference had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and, in particular, guaranteeing the proper administration of justice. On the question of whether it had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, the Court considered that the provisions concerned were difficult to reconcile with freedom of religion in so far as the Code of Criminal Procedure created the presumption that a witness was an Orthodox Christian and would take a religious oath. The very wording of the Code meant that people had to give details of their religious convictions in order to rectify that presumption and avoid having to take a religious oath. Furthermore, the Code of Criminal Procedure required witnesses to state their religion in any event in order to be heard in criminal proceedings, whereas in civil proceedings witnesses could choose between a religious oath and a solemn declaration, and were thus not obliged to divulge their religious beliefs. The law as applied in this case had obliged the applicants to reveal their religious beliefs in order to make a solemn declaration, thereby interfering with their freedom of religion. The interference had not been justified in principle or proportionate to the aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found a violation of Article   13 (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 15,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage; respondent State required to remove from its legislation any obstacles that might prevent the applicants’ situation from being adequately redressed. (See also Alexandridis v. Greece , no.   19516/06, 21   February 2008, Information Note no.   105)   © 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