CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 février 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE94AE824 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA904E5F0 { width:7.65pt; display:inline-block } .s9032BEEB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s6495A1EA { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     94   18.2.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF BUSCARINI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 18 February 1999 in the case of Buscarini and Others v. San Marino (application no.   24645/94), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   1.   Principal facts     The applicants, Mr Cristoforo Buscarini, Mr Emilio Della Balda and Mr Dario Manzaroli, are San Marinese nationals. They were born in 1943, 1937 and 1953 respectively and live in San Marino.     On 18 June 1993 the applicants, who had been elected to the San Marinese parliament (the Consiglio Grande e Generale ), took their oath of office in writing, omitting the reference to the Gospels required by section 55 of the Elections Act. On 26 July 1993 the parliament ordered the applicants to retake the oath, this time on the Gospels, on pain of forfeiting their seats. The applicants complied with this order, albeit complaining that their right to freedom of religion and conscience as guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed.     In October 1993 Law no. 115 introduced a choice for Members of Parliament between the traditional oath and one in which the reference to the Gospels was replaced by the words “on my honour”. The traditional wording is still mandatory for other categories of public office.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17   November 1993. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 2 December 1997 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. The case was referred to the Court by the first applicant on 10 March 1998, by the Government of the Republic of San Marino on 16 March 1998 and by the second applicant on 3 April 1998. The third applicant stated that he did not wish to take part in the proceedings.   Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998. Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, composed as follows:   Mr Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Mrs Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Mr Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Mr Lucius Caflisch (Swiss), Mr Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Mr Jean-Paul Costa (French), Mr Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Mr Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mr Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Mr Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Mrs Nina Vajić (Croatian), Mrs Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Mrs Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Mr Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Mr Egils Levits (Latvian), Mr Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mrs Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Judges ,   and also Mrs Maud de   Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar .     3.   Summary of the judgment [2]     Complaint     The applicants complained that ordering them to swear on the Gospels on pain of forfeiting their parliamentary seats had infringed their right to freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.     Decision of the Court     The Government’s preliminary objections     The Court first dismissed the respondent Government’s preliminary objections, which were that the application was an abuse of process, that it had been lodged out of time and that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.     The merits of the complaint     The Court began by reiterating the relevant principles of its own case-law (see the Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 17, § 31).     The Government’s arguments had focused on, inter alia , the importance of the oath taken by elected representatives of the people; the special character of San Marino, the history and national traditions of which were linked to Christianity since the Republic had been founded by a saint; and the assertion that the religious significance of the oath had now been replaced by “the need to preserve public order, in the form of social cohesion and the citizens’ trust in their traditional institutions”. Dealing with these points, the Court observed that, regardless whether the aims referred to by the Government were legitimate or not – a matter on which it did not consider it necessary to rule – it was not in doubt that, in general, San Marinese law guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion. In the instant case, however, requiring the applicants to take the oath on the Gospels had been tantamount to requiring two elected representatives of the people to swear allegiance to a particular religion, a requirement which was not compatible with Article 9 of the Convention. As the Commission had rightly stated in its report, it would be contradictory to make the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs. The limitation complained of accordingly could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”.     As to the Government’s argument that the application had ceased to have any purpose when Law no. 115/1993 was enacted, the Court noted that the oath in issue had been taken before the passing of that legislation.     Application of Article 41 of the Convention     The Court considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the finding of a violation of Article 9 of the Convention constituted sufficient just satisfaction. As regards costs and expenses, the applicants’ claim was not quantified and the Court accordingly dismissed it.         The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( www.dhcour.coe.fr ) on the day of their delivery.     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Roderick Liddell Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   [1] . Elected as Judge in respect of San Marino 1.     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.