Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 138
February 2011
Wasmuth v. Germany - 12884/03
Judgment 17.2.2011 [Section V]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Manifest religion or belief
Requirement to indicate on wage-tax card possible membership of a Church or religious society entitled to levy church tax: no violation
Facts – In Germany, taxpayers have a “wage-tax card” (for tax deduction from salary), on which can be found a box concerning the levy of the church tax which is to be deducted and paid to the Treasury by the employer. On the applicant’s wage-tax card, the entry “--” could be found in that box, indicating that he did not belong to a church or religious society entitled to levy church tax and thus informing his employer that no such tax was to be deducted. Arguing, in particular, that this indication breached his right not to manifest his religious beliefs, the applicant unsuccessfully requested the administrative authorities to issue him a wage-tax card without any box concerning religious affiliation. His applications were dismissed by the courts and his constitutional complaint was also unsuccessful.
Law – Article 9: The Court reiterated that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief also carried a negative aspect, namely the right for an individual not to act in such a way that it could be inferred that he or she had – or did not have – such beliefs. The obligation imposed on the applicant to provide the impugned information on his wage-tax card had thus constituted an interference with his right not to indicate his religious beliefs. However, that obligation had a legal basis in German law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the right of churches and religious societies to levy church tax. As to the proportionality of the interference, the reference on the tax card at issue was only of limited informative value, as it simply indicated that the applicant did not belong to one of the six churches or religious societies which were authorised to levy church tax, and did not allow the authorities to draw any conclusions as to his religious or philosophical practice. Moreover, the authorities had not requested the applicant to give the reasons for his non-membership or verified his religious or philosophical orientation. The tax card was not in principle used in public, outside the relations between the taxpayer and his employer or the tax authorities. In the circumstances of the case, the obligation imposed on the applicant to provide the relevant information had not therefore constituted a disproportionate interference. The Court did not rule out, however, that there might be situations in which interference with an applicant’s right not to manifest his religious beliefs could appear more significant and in which the balancing of interests might lead it to a different conclusion. As regards the applicant’s complaint that by providing the required information he contributed to the functioning of the church tax system and thereby indirectly supported religious institutions, the Court found that his participation in the system was minimal and that it served precisely to avoid him having unduly to pay church tax.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 8.
(See also Sinan Işık v. Turkey, no. 21924/05, 2 February 2010, Information Note no. 127, and Grzelak v. Poland, no. 7710/02, 15 June 2010, Information Note no. 131)
© 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