Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

X. v. ICELAND

Doc ref: 2525/65 • ECHR ID: 001-3007

Document date: February 6, 1967

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

X. v. ICELAND

Doc ref: 2525/65 • ECHR ID: 001-3007

Document date: February 6, 1967

Cited paragraphs only



THE FACTS

Whereas the facts as presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is an Icelandic citizen, born in 1919 and at present

living in Reykjavik.

He states that, in accordance with the custom in Iceland, he was

baptised when he was only a few weeks old. This implied, in his

submission, that the clergyman, the witnesses and his parents concluded

on his behalf "a baptismal covenant with Jehovah in Heaven". Later, he

was also confirmed and on that occasion he had to confess his belief

in Jehovah.

He states that he is no longer prepared to "abide by the baptismal

covenant" forced upon him as a child and he has, therefore, tried to

have his baptism annulled.

For this purpose, he instituted proceedings against the Bishop of

Iceland before the Town Court of Reykjavik, but his claim was dismissed

by the Court. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme

Court. He states that, according to Articles 9 and 10 of the

Convention, he has the right to profess his "own beliefs, convictions

and thoughts" and he asks for "a binding decision that my baptism and

confirmation are annulled, making it clear that this be a full

cancellation of the promise I was forced to make at my baptism and

subsequent confirmation".

As his appeals to the Icelandic courts have been unsuccessful he also

considers that he has not had an effective remedy according to Article

13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including

an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and

in particular in Articles 9, 10 and 13; whereas it follows that the

Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27,

paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255