CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s91E06A92 { width:115.68%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB52EFD4E { width:8.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s9D56672A { width:26.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7741EAFC { width:18.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5BB6DF0C { width:23.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6FB6CD7E { width:23.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s133B3A0C { width:8.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78D2DD96 { width:26.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5BE8526 { width:18.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC90D23D7 { width:23.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s170DDBA2 { width:23.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 May 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 62525/19 Charilaos CHRISTOU and Others against Greece lodged on 23 December 2019 communicated on 10 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the obligation of the first and third applicants to submit a solemn declaration declaring that their son, the second applicant, was not Orthodox Christian, in order for the latter to be exempted from the religious education course. The declaration originally submitted referred to the second applicant’s conscientious reasons in order to get the exemption, but it was rejected as it did not include that the applicant was not Orthodox Christian. At the time though, the Data Protection Authority had issued decision no. 28/2019 criticising the relevant requirement and the Supreme Administrative Court had issued decision no. 1479/2019 stating that the reference to conscientious reasons was sufficient. The applicants submitted a new declaration in which it was stated that the applicant was not Orthodox Christian in order to get the exemption from the religious education course; nevertheless, it was rejected as having been submitted out of the time-limit and the applicant was forced to follow the religious education course for school year 2019-2020.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the first and third applicants’ right under Article   2 of Protocol No.   1, interpreted in the light of Article 9 of the Convention, to have their child educated in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions having regard to: a) the requirement for the applicants to submit a declaration declaring that the applicant was not orthodox Christian in order for the second applicant to get exempted from the religious education course; b) the fact that the second applicant was forced to follow the religious education course after his declaration was rejected twice (see Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece , nos.   4762/18 and 6140/18, 31   October 2019)?         APPENDIX   List of applicants:     Application no. 62525/19 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Charilaos CHRISTOU 1968 Greek Athens 2. Dimitrios CHRISTOU 2004 Greek Athens 3. Stavroula ZISI 1976 Greek Athens