Sofianopoulos and Others v. Greece (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 48

December 2002

Sofianopoulos and Others v. Greece (dec.) - 1977/02, 1988/02 and 1997/02

Decision 12.12.2002 [Section I]

Article 9

Article 9-1

Manifest religion or belief

Dropping of mention of religion on identity cards: inadmissible

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Impartial tribunal

Statement by association of judges about a matter subsequently decided by some of its members sitting in the Council of State: inadmissible

In order to facilitate identity checks, Greek legislation had made it compulsory for identity cards to indicate the holder’s religion.  In a decision of May 2000, the Personal Data Protection Authority held that, for the purpose of checking identity, it was unnecessary for identity cards to contain certain information, including details of holders’ religion. An association, the Society of Judges for Democracy and Freedom, stated in the press that “even the optional mention of religion on identity cards is contrary to the fundamental provisions of the Constitution, which guarantee religious freedom”.  By a joint decision of July 2000, the Minister of the Economy and the Minister of Public Order defined the new identity card of Greek citizens and the information to be stated thereon, which no longer included religion.  The applicants brought an action before the Council of State for annulment of that decision.  They requested that those of the judges who, as members of the Society of Judges for Democracy and Freedom, had expressed their views in public about specification of religion on the identity card should withdraw from the case.  Nine judges stated that the belonged to the association.  The Council of State, in a plenary sitting, dismissed the applicants’ application that those judges withdraw but decided that the president of the association, who was a member of the Council of State, should take no part in the hearing.  As to the substance of the case, the Council of State held that, whether optional or compulsory, specification of religion on the identity card infringed the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.

Inadmissible under Article 9: identity cards cannot be regarded as a means of securing the right of members of a religion or faith to practise or manifest that religion or faith.  When a State chooses to introduce a system of identity cards, these are merely official documents identifying and distinguishing the individual in his or her capacity as a citizen and in relation to the national legal order.  Religious conviction is not a datum relevant to the individual citizen’s dealings with the State.  Furthermore, an identity card is an official document whose content cannot be determined according to the individual’s wishes.  The fact that Orthodoxy is the predominant religion in Greece and that official ceremonies contain an element of religious ceremony cannot justify specifying religion on identity cards.  The purpose of an identity card is in any case neither to reinforce the bearer’s religious beliefs nor to reflect the religion of a given society at a given time.  Accordingly, there has been no breach of the applicants’ right to manifest their religion: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal): the statement in the press of which the applicants complain was made by an association made up of a large number of judges from all the courts.  The members of the Council of State challenged by the applicants had not expressed individual views on the question of the inclusion of religion on identity cards.  The statement in issue had been published during the judicial vacation and the judges concerned had not had any prior knowledge of it.  For the Council of State to grant the application that they withdraw from the case would have been to give a degree of priority to formal considerations which not only could not be justified in the circumstances of the present case but which would also have paralysed the system, since the case had to be resolved by the plenary formation of the Council of State.  In addition, the Council of State granted the application that the member of the Council of State who was at the same time president of the association should stand down: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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