Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244
October 2020
Mariș v. Romania (dec.) - 58208/14
Decision 29.9.2020 [Section IV]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Manifest religion or belief
Refusal to rectify entry in prison file giving wrong religion for inmate: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant, who was Jewish, realised that he was wrongly listed as an Orthodox Christian in the register of the prison where he was being held. He unsuccessfully asked for the entry indicating his religion to be rectified.
Law – Article 9: Unlike the cases previously examined by the Court under Article 9 in a custodial context, the applicant had merely been seeking the rectification of his prison file.
The applicant’s complaint had been one of a rather abstract and theoretical nature. Although he had been imprisoned in 2002 he had not requested the rectification until 2013. Even if his allegations were to be accepted, namely that his religion had automatically been entered as Orthodox Christian and that he had not been consulted at any time about his religious affiliation, the entry in his file had not had any consequences for his ability to manifest or practise his religion during the relevant period. Moreover, the applicant had not informed the Court of any refusal by the prison authorities to grant any requests to allow him to fulfil the obligations of his faith, for example to meet a representative of his religion, attend religious services or to be served meals according to religious dietary precepts. Nor had he alleged that the prison authority had prevented him from engaging in any acts of worship or had subjected him to any pressure, intimidation or sanctions on account of his religion. Lastly, the entry in his file was not for public consultation or for use in daily life, but was accessible only to the prison authorities. Moreover, he had not renewed his request for rectification of his file after being transferred to another prison.
Thus the refusal to amend the entry recording his religion in his prison file did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his religion.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also Sofianopoulos and Others v. Greece (dec.), 1997/02 et al., 12 December 2002, Note d’information 48; Sinan Işık v. Turkey, 21924/05, 2010, Note d’information 127; Wasmuth v. Germany, 12884/03, 17 February 2011, Note d’information 138)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy