AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24019/94
by Finska församlingen i Stockholm
and Teuvo HAUTANIEMI
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 11 April 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President
MM. H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 9 February 1994
by Finska församlingen i Stockholm and Teuvo HAUTANIEMI against Sweden
and registered on 2 May 1994 under file No. 24019/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are the Finnish parish in Stockholm and the
chairman of its board, a Finnish citizen born in 1942 and resident at
Bromma, Sweden. Mr. Hautaniemi also represents the parish before the
Commission.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
By virtue of a Church Ordinance (kyrklig kungörelse no. 1993:4)
the Assembly of the Church of Sweden (kyrkomötet; "the Church
Assembly") on 25 August 1993 adopted a Finnish translation of its
liturgy. The translation had been considered necessary in view of the
large number of Finnish-speaking members of the Church of Sweden and
was aimed at harmonising the liturgy used in the Finnish-speaking
parishes in the country. The translation was to be used as from
1 January 1994.
In consequence of this decision the Church Assembly revoked a
decision of 1984 allowing the use of the liturgy of the Finnish
Evangelical-Lutheran Church in the applicant parish. The parish
nevertheless retained its right to use the Finnish translation of the
Bible and the Finnish hymn book, both adopted by the Finnish
Evangelical-Lutheran Church. The German parish in Stockholm was allowed
to continue to use the liturgy of the German Evangelical-Lutheran
Church, since no German translation of the liturgy of the Church of
Sweden had been made.
The board of the applicant parish appealed against the Church
Assembly's decision. On 19 May 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court
(Regeringsrätten) dismissed the appeal without examining its merits,
since there was no appeal against decisions of the Church Assembly.
According to the 1992 Church Act (kyrkolag 1992:300), the Church
of Sweden is an Evangelical-Lutheran congregation (chapter 2,
section 1). The Church Assembly consists of 251 members who are elected
every three years among those members of the Church who have reached
the age of majority (chapter 29, sections 1 and 4). The Church Assembly
may issue church ordinances concerning, inter alia, the religious
services (chapter 29, section 12).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention about
the prohibition of the use of the liturgy of the Finnish Evangelical-
Lutheran Church in the applicant parish. Allegedly a large majority of
the parish members wished to keep this liturgy, but the parish was not
heard prior to the Church Assembly's decision. The prohibition
allegedly bars visiting Finnish priests from conducting services.
Moreover, parishes of the Church of Sweden located abroad retain the
right to use the liturgy of that Church.
2. The applicants also consider that the applicant parish is being
discriminated against in comparison with the German parish in Stockholm
which may continue to use the liturgy of the German Evangelical-
Lutheran Church.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain under Article 9 (Art. 9) of the
Convention that the use of the liturgy of the Finnish Evangelical-
Lutheran Church has been prohibited in the applicant parish.
Article 9 (Art. 9) reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or
in community with others and in public or in private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law
and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of public safety, for the protection of public order,
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others."
The Commission recalls Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the
Convention which reads, in its relevant parts, as follows:
" The Commission may receive petitions ... from any person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals
claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High
Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this
Convention ..."
The Commission observes that at the relevant time the Church of
Sweden and its member parishes were to be regarded as corporations of
public law. Since these religious bodies cannot be considered to have
been exercising governmental powers, the Church of Sweden and notably
the applicant parish can nevertheless be regarded as "non-governmental
organisations" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1)
(cf. Eur. Court H.R., The Holy Monasteries v. Greece judgment of
9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, pp. 27-28, paras. 48-49).
The Commission furthermore notes that the prohibition against the
use of the liturgy of the Finnish Church is formally directed at the
applicant parish and not at the individual applicant, Mr. Hautaniemi.
It recalls that a church body or an association with religious and
philosophical aims is capable of possessing and exercising the right
to freedom of religion, since an application by such a body is in
reality lodged on behalf of its members (see, e.g., No. 12587/86,
Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 53 pp. 241 et seq., at p. 246, and the further
references therein).
The Commission therefore considers that the applicant parish can
claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1
(Art. 25-1) of the Convention of a violation of its rights under
Article 9. As a member of the applicant parish Mr. Hautaniemi is
affected by the prohibition to such an extent that he may also claim
to be "victim" of a violation of that provision.
The Commission has just found that, for the purposes of
Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, the Church of Sweden and its
member parishes are to be regarded as "non-governmental organisations".
It follows that the respondent State cannot be held responsible for the
alleged violation of the applicants' freedom of religion resulting from
the decision of the Church Assembly (cf., mutatis mutandis, No.
12242/86, Dec. 6.9.89, D.R. 62 p. 151). There has thus been no State
interference with that freedom.
The Commission notes that the applicant parish forms an integral
part of the Church of Sweden. As such the parish is obliged to comply
with the Church Assembly's decisions concerning, inter alia, the manner
in which religious services shall be conducted. The prohibition against
the use of the liturgy of the Finnish Church was a result of the Church
Assembly's decision to adopt a Finnish translation of the liturgy of
the Church of Sweden. The prohibition was thus aimed at providing rules
for the liturgy used in Finnish-speaking parishes belonging to the
Church of Sweden.
It has not been established that the applicant parish would be
prevented from leaving the Church of Sweden if it were unable to accept
the liturgy of that Church. Nor can the Commission find any
substantiation of the applicants' assertion that the prohibition
against the use of the liturgy of the Finnish Church effectively bars
Finnish priests from conducting services in the parish. Finally, there
is no element indicating that the prohibition, for any other reason,
effectively limits the applicants' right to freedom of religion and
notably their freedom to manifest their religion in worship.
In these circumstances the Commission concludes that there has
been no failure on the part of the State to protect the applicants'
freedom of religion and notably their freedom to manifest their
religion in worship. Accordingly, there is no appearance of any
violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicants also consider that the prohibition against the use
of the liturgy of the Finnish Church in the applicant parish
discriminates against the Finnish parish, if compared with the German
parish in Stockholm.
The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 14 of
the Convention in conjunction with Article 9 (Art. 14+9).
Article 14 (Art. 14) reads as follows:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any
ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national minority, property, birth or
other status."
Recalling its considerations in point 1, the Commission considers
that both applicants can also claim status as "victims" within the
meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention of a
violation of their rights under Article 14 in conjunction with
Article 9 (Art. 14+9).
The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) complements the
other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It
has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation
to "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms" safeguarded by those
provisions (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany
judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp. 32-33, paras. 22-24).
In this connection the Commission reiterates its considerations in
point 1 according to which the State is not responsible under the
Convention for the decisions of the Church of Sweden regarding its
liturgy and adds that there would seem to be no obstacle to the
applicant parish leaving the Church of Sweden if it felt unable to
accept these decisions. Similar considerations apply to the examination
of whether the applicants have been discriminated against in violation
of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9
(Art. 14+9).
It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to Acting President
the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (G.H. THUNE)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy