Last Updated on October 31, 2020 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244
October 2020
Perovy v. Russia – 47429/09
Judgment 20.10.2020 [Section III]
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents’ religious convictions
No effects from mere presence of seven-year-old child at one-off short religious ceremony in municipal school, without indoctrination aims: no violation
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
No effects from mere presence of seven-year-old child at one-off short religious ceremony in municipal school, without indoctrination aims: no violation
Facts – The applicants are a married couple (the first and second applicants) and their son (the third applicant), who was a seven-year-old first-year pupil at a municipal school at the relevant time. They all belong to the Church of the Community of Christ. At the request of the majority of the schoolchildren’s parents, a Russian Orthodox rite of blessing of a school classroom was performed by an Orthodox priest, the father of one of the pupils, at the beginning of the new academic year. The son (third applicant) was present during the ceremony.
Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 1:
The obligation on Contracting States to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of parents did not apply only to the content of teaching and the way it was provided, but bound them “in the exercise” of all the “functions”, in the terms of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which they assumed in relation to education and teaching. In general, where the organisation of the school environment was a matter for the public authorities, that task must be seen as a function assumed by the State in relation to education and teaching, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, it could be assumed that participation in at least some religious activities, especially in the case of young children, would be capable of affecting pupils’ minds in a manner giving rise to an issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
The blessing of the classroom constituted an interference with the right of parents to ensure education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions enshrined in the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
The impugned rite of blessing was undoubtedly a religious ceremony with great spiritual and symbolic significance in the Russian Orthodox tradition. Understandably for the first and second applicants, who were adherents of another Christian denomination, even the mere presence of their child during such a ceremony without prior notification may have subjectively appeared to demonstrate a lack of respect on the State’s part for their right to ensure education and teaching in conformity with their religious convictions. The fact that the rite had been organised and performed by the parents with only tacit approval by the State-employed teacher was in itself of no decisive significance.
Similarly to the case of Lautsi v. Italy [GC], 30814/06, 18 March 2011, Information Note 139, there was no evidence that the presence during a one-off short ceremony, which had lasted no more than twenty minutes, had had an influence on the pupils, and so it could not reasonably be asserted that it had or had not had an effect on the third applicant, whose convictions had been still in the process of being formed. The applicants’ subjective perception was not in itself sufficient to establish a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
From an objective viewpoint, the rite had been an isolated incident in the third applicant’s upbringing, limited in scope and duration. While regrettable that the second applicant, a clergyman of another Christian denomination, had not been advised of the upcoming ceremony, there was no evidence that it was marked by any indoctrination or coercion.
Without casting any doubt on the subjective significance of the events for the applicants, there was also no evidence of any effects of the rite (be it psychological or other effects) on the rearing of the applicants’ child in accordance with the teachings of their faith; nor of the alleged, profound distress caused to the son (such as, for example, a clinical psychological or social assessment report).
Most importantly, the domestic authorities had acted swiftly and adequately on the applicants’ complaints. They had acknowledged that there had been a breach of the applicants’ rights, imposed a disciplinary sanction on the school principal, and made clear that the incident should not be repeated. Moreover, the domestic courts had examined carefully the applicants’ claims in civil proceedings.
Conclusion: no violation (four votes to three).
Article 9:
The third applicant, a minor at the material time, had lodged an Article 9 complaint in his own name, alleging that the holding of the ceremony had infringed his freedom of religion.
The municipal school had facilitated the collective exercise by Russian Orthodox believers of their freedom to manifest their religious beliefs by performing the rite of blessing. However, the content of the ceremony had not been prescribed or monitored by the school authorities, incorporated in the academic programme or made a compulsory educational requirement. The involvement of the State had not gone beyond providing the premises of a municipal school to an admittedly dominant religious group for a minor one-off event without any intention of indoctrination. The event had been essentially an error of assessment by the school teacher and had been immediately rectified through specific decisions and sanctions.
The third applicant’s involvement in the rite of blessing had not extended beyond his mere presence at the ceremony and being a witness to it. While everyone in attendance had been invited to kiss the crucifix, only those who so wished had actually done so and the third applicant had abstained. Small paper icons had been deposited by the priest on the desks and there was no indication that anyone had been coerced to accept them. The priest had been notified by the teacher of the presence of an adherent of other religious beliefs, but the third applicant’s identity had not been disclosed to him. There had been no direct attempts by the priest or the teacher to proselytise or to force anyone to participate in the rite.
The authorities had also acted swiftly and adequately on the complaints made, acknowledged an interference with the third applicant’s freedom of religion, imposed reasonable sanctions on the responsible persons and taken steps to prevent similar incident.
In sum, the third applicant had neither been forced to participate in the manifestation of the beliefs of another Christian denomination nor discouraged from adherence to his own beliefs. Being a witness to the ceremony might have aroused some feelings of disagreement in him. However, this disagreement should be seen in the broad context of the open-mindedness and tolerance required in a democratic society of competing religious groups, who could not rely on Article 9 to restrict the exercise of other persons’ religious freedoms. No religious group or individual was provided with the right not to witness individual or collective manifestations of other religious or non-religious beliefs and convictions.
Conclusion: no violation (four votes to three).
(See also Lautsi v. Italy [GC], 30814/06, 18 March 2011, Information Note 139)
Leave a Reply