The European Court of Human Rights is currently considering a case seeking the removal of religious symbols from public buildings, the ruling from which could affect public institutions’ ability across the 46 Council of Europe states to display such symbols.
The ‘Union of Atheists v. Greece’ case involves two applications in which the applicants, who identify as atheists, requested the removal of Christian symbols displayed in Greek courtrooms during hearings related to religious education issues.
According to the case filing, the applicant association requested the removal of a Christian orthodox icon of Jesus Christ from the courtroom, arguing that its presence violated the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 14 of the Convention concerns the prohibition of discrimination, stating that enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured “without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.
The applicants additionally argued that the presence of religious symbolism in the courtroom hindered their right to a fair trial and brought the court’s objective impartiality into question.
The Greek courts rejected the applicants’ requests to remove the icons, with an argument advanced that in the context of “the dominant Christian Orthodox religion”, the presence of Christian symbolism was a practice which had long been followed in all courtrooms “according to custom and the orthodox tradition”.
The applicants complained that as the subject matter of the trials related to the right to freedom of religion, the rejection of their requests to have the icon removed from the courtrooms infringed their right to an impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 (concerning right to a fair trial) and their rights under Article 9 § 1 (concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention.
They also claim that there is a consensus among the Council of Europe member states against displaying religious symbols in courtrooms, and that the display of religious imagery in Greece is not provided for by law.
Legal advocacy organisation ADF International has intervened in Union of Atheists v. Greece to argue that religious symbols, including artwork, icons and other Christian imagery, reflecting a country’s history and traditions, “cannot be forced down under a false interpretation of religious freedom”.
Commenting on the case, Senior Counsel at ADF International, Adina Portaru said that “the display of religious symbols in public spaces is in no way incompatible with human rights law. Public spaces should not be stripped of crosses, icons or other symbols with religious, cultural, and historical significance in the name of pluralism”.
“The Court has repeatedly affirmed that religious symbols, particularly those forming a country’s heritage, do not violate freedom of religion or the right to a fair trial,” she said.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) previously addressed a similar issue in the 2011 case, Lautsi v. Italy.
That case concerned the matter of displaying crucifixes in the classrooms of public schools, with the Grand Chamber adjudicating that a crucifix does not, in itself, equal indoctrination, or interfere with the right of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion.
According to ADF International, in reaching that conclusion, the Court “acknowledged that religious symbols displayed in public institutions often form part of Europe’s historical and cultural heritage, reflecting traditions that have shaped national identity over centuries”.
“The European Convention on Human Rights robustly protects freedom of religion. Culturally rooted religious symbols or artwork, such as centuries-old Orthodox Christian icons, do not impose a belief on anyone nor direct judicial decision-making,” Ms Portaru said.
The case has been communicated, and is now being considered by the ECHR in light of the parties’ submissions and third-party interventions, such as that from ADF International.