Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
December 1996
Valsamis v. Greece - 21787/93
Judgment 18.12.1996
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents' religious convictions
Penalty of a day's suspension from school for failure to take part in a school parade on grounds of religious beliefs of pupil's parents, who were Jehovah's Witnesses: no violation
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief
Penalty of a day's suspension from school for failure to take part in a school parade on grounds of pupil's religious beliefs: no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Relied on by the parents only - unnecessary for Court to consider of its own motion whether the pupil's right to education had been respected.
Not for Court to rule on Greek State's decisions as regards setting and planning of school curriculum, but Court surprised that pupils could be required on pain of suspension from school, even if only for a day, to parade outside school precincts on a holiday - nevertheless, nothing, either in purpose of parade or in arrangements for it, could offend applicants' pacifist convictions to an extent prohibited by second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Such commemorations of national events served, in their way, both pacifist objectives and the public interest - presence of military representatives at some of the parades which took place in Greece on day in question did not in itself alter nature of parades - furthermore, the obligation on the pupil did not deprive her parents of their right to enlighten and advise their children, to exercise with regard to their children natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their children on a path in line with the parents' own religious or philosophical convictions.
Not for Court to rule on expediency of other educational methods which, in the applicants' view, would be better suited to aim of perpetuating historical memory among younger generation - however, penalty of suspension, which could not be regarded as an exclusively educational measure and might have some psychological impact on the pupil on whom it was imposed, was nevertheless of limited duration and did not require exclusion of pupil from school premises.
Conclusion: no violation (seven votes to two).
II.ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
Relied on by the pupil only - Court had already held that obligation to take part in school parade was not such as to offend the parents' religious convictions - impugned measure had therefore not amounted to an interference with pupil's right to freedom of religion.
Conclusion: no violation (seven votes to two).
III.ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
Recapitulation of Court's case-law.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The allegations of failure to comply with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9 of the Convention had been arguable, so that applicants had been entitled to have a remedy in order to raise them -on the other hand, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention contained no arguable allegation of a breach.
Applicants had not been able to obtain a judicial decision that disciplinary measure of suspension from school was unlawful, which was a prerequisite for submitting a claim for compensation - the actions for damages referred to in Article 57 of Civil Code and section 105 of Introductory Law to Civil Code had therefore been of no avail to them -as to other remedies relied on, the Government had cited no instance of their use similar to the instant case, and their effectiveness had accordingly not been established.
Conclusion: violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9 of the Convention, but not taken together with Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously).
V.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: judgment afforded sufficient compensation.
B.Costs and expenses (before the Convention institutions): reimbursed in part.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sum to applicants (unanimously).
© 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