Published on 28 July 2025
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 19150/20 and 11122/25
UNION OF ATHEISTS against Greece
and UNION OF ATHEISTS and Others against Greece
lodged on 18 March 2020
communicated on 7 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The cases concern the display of religious symbols in the courtroom.
In the first application the applicant association had applied for the annulment of two ministerial decisions that determined the content of religious education courses in schools. A hearing of the case was scheduled on 21 September 2018, when other applications for annulment lodged by Christian orthodox parties were also to be heard and other Christian orthodox parties participated as interveners, such as the Church of Greece. On 20 September 2018 and in view of the upcoming hearing, the applicant association requested the president of the Supreme Administrative Court to remove the Christian orthodox icon of Jesus Christ from the courtroom, noting the subject matter of the trial and arguing that the presence of the icon would link the courtroom decorum to the interveners. It would violate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion under Article 14 of the Convention and it would also hinder its right to a fair trial and, in particular, it would cast doubt on the court’s objective impartiality. Furthermore, it was not provided for by any statutory provision.
The above application of the applicant association for annulment of the ministerial decisions was dismissed on the merits. By preliminary decision no. 130/2018 of the Plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court, which became available to the applicant association on 11 October 2019, the request related to the icon was rejected for being inadmissible.
In the second application the applicants had applied for the annulment of two ministerial decisions which provided for the recording of religion on the high school diploma and the certificates of studies. A hearing of the case was scheduled on 10 May 2019. On 7 May 2019 and in view of the upcoming hearing, the applicants submitted a similar request arguing that, considering the subject matter of the trial which concerned religious neutrality, its presence would violate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion and would hinder their right to a fair trial and their access to an impartial tribunal.
The applicants’ applications for annulment of the ministerial decisions were granted. By preliminary decision no. 71/2019 of the Plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court, which became available to the applicants on 11 October 2019, the aforesaid request was dismissed as unfounded. The court held that, in the context of the dominant Christian Orthodox religion, this was a practice which has been followed for long in all courtrooms according to custom and the orthodox tradition. It found therefore no violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial.
The applicants complain that, as the subject matter of the trials concerned the right to freedom of religion, the rejection as inadmissible or the dismissal of their requests to have the icon of the religion to which they did not adhere removed infringed their right to an impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 and their rights under Article 9 § 1 of the Convention. They argue that there is a consensus among the Council of Europe member states against displaying religious symbols in courtrooms and that such display in Greece is not provided for by law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicants’ right to a fair trial and in particular their right to an impartial tribunal, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, been breached in that the Supreme Administrative Court did not adjudicate on their request to have the religious icon removed or dismissed the request as unfounded considering in particular the subject matters of the trials?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention taking into account that this provision guarantees the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom not to belong to a religion, and imposes on Contracting States a “duty of neutrality and impartiality”? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2?
3. Have the applicants been victims of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention combined with Articles 6 § 1 and/or 9 of the Convention, having in particular regard to the subject matters of the trials and the fact that they do not adhere to the Christian Orthodox religion?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Place of Residence
Nationality
1.
19150/20
18/03/2020
UNION OF ATHEISTS
Athens
2.
11122/25
18/03/2020
UNION OF ATHEISTS
Athens
Georgios PAPADOPOULOS
Herakleion Crete
Greek
Magia PAPADOPOULOU
Herakleion Crete
Greek
Papatya PAPADOPOULOU
Herakleion Crete
Greek
Aggelos Michail PATRINOS
Uccle
Greek
Antonios Ioannis PATRINOS
Uccle
Greek
Michail Gerasimos PATRINOS
Uccle
Greek
Giasemi POMARES
Marousi
Greek
Marina Tatiana RAPAKOULIA
Marousi
Greek