FIRST SECTION
CASE OF STAVROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application no. 52484/18)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 9 • Manifest religion or belief (negative aspect) • Birth registration act revealing parents’ choice not to christen their child • Disclosure of religious beliefs in frequently used public documents exposing their bearers to the risk of discriminatory situations in dealings with administrative authorities • Interference, resulting from the widespread practice of domestic registry offices, not prescribed by law
 
 
STRASBOURG
25 June 2020
 
FINAL
 
25/09/2020
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stavropoulos and others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ksenija Turković, President,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
 Aleš Pejchal,
 Pere Pastor Vilanova,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application no. 52484/18 against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Greek nationals, Mr Nikolaos Stavropoulos, Ms Ioanna Kravari and Ms Stavroula‑Dorothea Stavropoulou (“the applicants”), on 31 October 2018;
the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the application;
the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);
the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants;
the comments submitted by the Greek Ombudsman, who was invited to intervene by the President of the Section, pursuant to Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns the registration of the third applicant’s forename in the birth register. In particular, her forename was entered in the birth register with the addition, contained in brackets, of an abbreviation of the word “naming” (ονοματοδοσία). The applicants argued that the law did not require registry offices to specify whether a child was named by a civil or Christian act, and that their doing so had constituted a violation of their right to freedom of religion. They also argued that it revealed sensitive personal data, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The first and second applicants were born in 1961, and the third applicant was born in 2007. The applicants live in Oxford, United Kingdom. They were represented by the first applicant and by Mr S. Skliris, lawyers practising in Oxford and Athens respectively. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent’s delegate, Ms O. Patsopoulou, Senior Advisor at the State Legal Council. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. On 17 August 2007 the first applicant, in his capacity as father of the third applicant and having been authorised by the second applicant, in her capacity as mother of the third applicant, went to the Amarousio registry office to register the birth of their daughter, the third applicant. 6. The registry office employee entered the third applicant’s name in the birth register. Next to her name he included a note in parentheses indicating “naming” in abbreviated form. 7. On 19 October 2007 the applicants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for the annulment of the third applicant’s birth registration, in so far as it concerned the note “naming”. They argued that it constituted a reference to the fact that their child had not been christened and thereby revealed their religious beliefs. On 6 March 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court, after citing Articles 25 and 26 of Law no. 344/1976 (see paragraph 8 below), rejected the application as inadmissible, holding that the applicants lacked legal interest to act. In particular, Law no. 344/1976 provided that the first name of a child could be registered only by naming, that is to say by the parents or the child’s official guardians declaring the name of the child before the competent registry office, irrespective of whether the child would later be christened. Therefore, the note “naming” next to the third applicant’s name merely repeated the title of Article 25 of Law no. 344/1976, and was the only legal way of acquiring a name. It could not therefore be claimed that it constituted grounds for discrimination and caused the applicants the alleged harm. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Law no. 344/1976
8. The relevant provisions of Law no. 344/1976, as applicable at the time, read as follows:
Article 8
Registers and registration acts
“1. In order to certify the civil situation of an individual, each registry office shall keep registers of births, weddings, civil unions (of heterosexual couples), deaths, and births of children of unknown parents. 2. Registers are public. 3. The acts certifying the birth, wedding, or death of an individual, the validity of civil unions, as well as modifications of the content or corrections of such acts, shall be recorded in the registers. 4. The registration or correction or modification of the content of such acts shall be made by declaration of the person authorised under the present law ...”
Article 8A
Information Management System for Registration Acts
“1. The Ministry of the Interior shall create an Information Management System for Registration Acts and shall keep a central record of it. Only certified users shall have access to it ... 4. Registration acts shall be printed solely from the Information Management System for Registration Acts and shall carry a security mark generated automatically by the system.”
Article 13
Correction of registration acts
“1. In order for a registration to be corrected, a final judicial decision is required. 2. Errors that have been recorded in a register by manifest inadvertence, which do not concern the place, day, month, year and time that the registered event took place, can also be corrected by permission of the Public Prosecutor, or, where there is no Public Prosecutor, of the Magistrate. Permission shall be given following investigation and verification of the real data, at the request of anyone who has legitimate interest ...”
Article 25
Naming
“The name of a newborn child shall be recorded in the birth registration act following a declaration by his or her parents who exercise parental responsibility, or by one of them provided that he or she has written authorisation from the other parent, whose signature has been certified by a public, municipal or communal authority. If one of the parents does not exist or does not have parental authority, the name shall be registered by the other parent. If neither parent exists or has parental authority, the name shall be registered by the person who has been assigned as guardian of the child. Registration of a name in accordance with the above-mentioned procedure shall not be reversible.”
 
Article 26
Registration of christening in the birth registers
“1. A christening shall be recorded in the side section of the birth registration act within ninety days from its performance upon submission of a declaration by the priest who officiated or assisted at the ceremony. After the expiry of this deadline, the declaration shall be accepted by the registrar, but shall entail the sanctions provided for by Article 49 of the present Law. 2. The persons obliged to file the registration of the christening are:
(a)  the christened person, if he or she has completed the fourteenth year of age;
(b)  the father or the mother or anyone else other who has custody of the person concerned;
(c)  the godparent; and
(d)  the blood relatives of the christened person up to the third degree of kinship, in accordance with Article 21 § 2. 3. The record of the christening in the side section of the birth registration act shall include the date of the christening, any name given to the newborn [and] the names and surnames of the person declaring, the godparent, the priest and any witnesses in accordance with Article 10.”
Ministerial decision F. 1/2013
9. The relevant parts of ministerial decision F. 1/2013 read as follows:
A. Initial registration
“1. Registers of births, weddings, civil unions and deaths shall be kept in volumes of 250 pages. Each volume shall consist of printed sheets of registration acts of births, weddings, civil unions and deaths respectively that are printed from the Information Management System for Registration Acts in A4 format and signed by the individual declaring the event and the registrar. The printed sheet shall certify the birth, wedding, or death of a person, the validity of the civil union between two individuals, modification of the content, or correction of the respective registration ...”
C. Copies
“Copies and extracts of registration acts that are generated from the Information Management System for Registration Acts shall be signed by the registrar and shall have the same validity as the printed registration acts that are signed by the individuals who make the declaration and the registrar.”
Code of Civil Procedure
10. The relevant Article of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
Article 782
“1. When the law requires a judicial decision to certify an event in order to draw up a registration, that decision shall be issued at the request of anyone who has a legal interest or of the prosecutor of the region in which the registrar drawing up the registration is based. 2. The decision shall certify any other data required by law to be included in the registration act, unless it is impossible to do so. 3. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply also to the correction of registration.”
OTHER DOMESTIC MATERIALState Legal Council’s opinion no. 431/2006

11. Following interventions by the Greek Ombudsman (see paragraph 14 below), the State Legal Council issued opinion no. 431/2006, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“... in cases where a [newborn child’s] name is not declared simultaneously with, or at an earlier stage than, a christening declaration, parents have an obligation to make a special declaration, as the mere noting of the name when registering the christening does not suffice for the acquisition of a name ... if the parents do not declare a name, the newborn child, even if the christening has been registered, does not acquire a first name and therefore cannot have the name listed in the extracts issued from the register until the naming process has taken place.”
12. Pursuant to Article 7 § 4 of Law no. 3086/2002, opinions issued by the State Legal Council are not binding on the public administration, unless they are endorsed by the president of the Hellenic Parliament, the competent minister, the board or other competent organ of a legal person governed by public law, an independent administrative authority, or the general secretary of the prefecture. Circular of the Ministry of the Interior
13. In a circular dated 24 October 2006, the Ministry of the Interior stated the following:
“... a christening declaration cannot be interpreted as a naming declaration, unless it is done under the conditions of Law no. 344/1976, that is, unless it is done by both parents or by one parent with the authorisation of the absent parent.”
Greek Ombudsman
14. In an intervention of December 2006, following complaints lodged in December 2005 and January 2006, the Greek Ombudsman stated, inter alia:
“... the view that only those who are not christened are named, or that there is no need to name those who have been christened ... not only does not comply with the above provisions, but it also results in forcing citizens to inadvertently register a religion.”
15. In his 2006 annual report, the Greek Ombudsman stated, inter alia:
“... A large number of issues related to religious freedom in Greece are mainly due to inflexibility and misunderstandings demonstrated by public administration as to the religious neutrality of the State. Although the legislator has, for several decades, decided on total secularisation of the State, public administration, trapped either by inertia or by other obstacles, or simply following societal prejudice, still maintains some active remnants of the power of the Church.”
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicants complained that the registration of the word “naming” next to the first name of the third applicant on her birth registration act violated the negative aspect of freedom to manifest their religious beliefs, as provided for in Article 9 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
AdmissibilityThe Government’s arguments

17. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, they had chosen to lodge an application for annulment with the Supreme Administrative Court. However, given that the entry of the word “naming” was not provided for by any legislative provision and had been written inadvertently, the applicants could have applied instead for correction of the birth registration, either to the public prosecutor or to the Magistrates’ Court, under Article 782 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The procedure provided for by law was simple and a positive decision would have obliged the registrar to proceed with the correction. The Government adduced some domestic judgments by which the correction of errors in birth registration acts had been ordered. 18. The Government further argued that the applicants had not suffered any significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention. In particular, they had complained about the handwritten note “naming” next to the third applicant’s name on her birth registration act, which merely repeated the title of Article 25 of Law no. 644/1976. However, registers were not accessible to everyone. Moreover, that note did not appear on the extracts of the birth registration act which the third applicant would be required to submit to schools and other public services. Therefore, there was no chance that she would be subjected to differential treatment owing to her religious beliefs, and the alleged disadvantage caused to the applicants, if any, was insignificant. The fact that they had not referred to any specific incident proved that point. In addition, they complained that their religious beliefs were revealed by the handwritten note “naming”, while at the same time parents were required to register their religion when registering a birth, and the first and second applicants had never complained about that. The above‑mentioned arguments proved that the applicants had not suffered any significant disadvantage on account of the alleged violation of the Convention, nor was the Court compelled to examine the case out of respect for human rights. Lastly, the applicants’ complaint had been thoroughly examined by the Supreme Administrative Court. Therefore, all three criteria under Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention had been met and the application should be declared inadmissible. The applicants’ arguments
19. The applicants contested the Government’s arguments. In their view, they had exhausted all available domestic remedies which were capable of providing redress in respect of their complaint. As regards the application for correction of certain elements of the birth registration under Article 13 of Law no. 344/1976 and Article 782 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that procedure referred to unintentional mistakes, for example of grammar or spelling, and errors of fact. However, in the circumstances of the present case and contrary to the Government’s allegations, the additional note next to the name of the third applicant was not a mistake made inadvertently, but rather an intentional registration of a true piece of information, that is to say that the third applicant had acquired her name by the act of naming. That information, however, should not figure on her birth registration act, as it revealed the applicants’ religious beliefs. Therefore, the birth registration act was correct and did not contain any inaccurate information for the applicants to request its correction through the procedure provided for by Article 13 of Law no. 344/1976 and Article 782 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the contrary, that procedure was not the appropriate one for seeking to have the handwritten note of an employee of the Amarousio registry office declared null and void. 20. As regards the Government’s submission that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage, the applicants, referring to the Court’s judgments in the cases of Biržietis v. Lithuania (no. 49304/09, §§ 34-37, 14 June 2016), and Vartic v. Romania (no. 2) (no. 14150/08, §§ 37-41, 17 December 2013), argued that the case raised important matters of principle. The issue that arose was one of general interest in the Greek legal order, because since 1976, the law had provided for “naming” as the only legal way of acquiring a name. However, registrars continued to consider christening as an alternative way of legally obtaining a name and, therefore, they continued to enter next to the first name of a newborn child whose parents declared the child’s name by the civil act of naming, the note “naming”, as opposed to acquiring the name by christening. Against that background, the fact that some parents chose not to name their child through christening revealed something about their religious beliefs. Therefore, the applicants had suffered significant disadvantage due to the violation of the negative aspect of their rights under Article 9 of the Convention. 21. The first and second applicants also claimed that the fact that their religion was registered on their daughter’s birth registration act was not sufficient to mitigate the consequences of the handwritten note “naming” appearing next to her name. When the first and second applicants were born, which was prior to 1976, christening had been the only legal way of acquiring a name. Therefore, anyone born prior to 1976 had had to be christened in order to have a name, irrespective of whether they were true Christians or not. Believers and non-believers alike had had to be christened, as that had been the only way of legally obtaining a name and thus, the indication of Christian Orthodox as their religion had not necessarily revealed their beliefs. 22. In any event, even if the applicants were considered not to have suffered any significant disadvantage, they claimed that the case could not be dismissed as inadmissible as respect for human rights required an examination on the merits and, in addition, the case had not been duly considered by a domestic court. In particular, the indication of the religious beliefs of a person in a public document that was meant to be used in the individual’s transactions with many public services was a matter of principle that should be examined by the Court. In addition, the applicants’ application for annulment before the Supreme Administrative Court had been rejected as inadmissible; therefore, their application had never been examined on the merits and thus had not been properly examined by a domestic court.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 9
Outcome: violation