Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31

June 2001

Alujer Fernandez and Caballero Garcia v. Spain (dec.) - 53072/99

Decision 14.6.2001 [Section IV]

Article 14

Discrimination

Impossibility for members of the Baptist Church to earmark part of their income tax for the support of their church, as members of the Roman Catholic Church may do: inadmissible

The applicants are members of the Baptist Evangelical Church in Valencia. In their income-tax return for 1988 the applicants were entitled to put part of their income tax towards financial support for the Catholic Church or other charitable purposes, but not towards financial support for their own church. The appli cants applied to the Valencia High Court of Justice for judicial review of the Income Tax Act 1988. They relied on the principle of equality before the law and the right to freedom of conscience and religion embodied in the Constitution and sought an order invalidating the system of income-tax returns on the ground that it denied them a right enjoyed by Spaniards of the Catholic faith. In April 1990 the Valencia High Court of Justice rejected their application; likewise, in October 1997 the Supreme Court di smissed an appeal by them. Lastly, in May 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed an amparo appeal by the applicants, holding, inter alia , that there had been no discrimination on religious grounds as the difference in the law’s treatment of the churches w as justified by the difference between the situation of the Catholic Church – the only church to have entered into a concordat with, inter alia , the State – and that of other faiths.

Inadmissible under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9: Freedo m of religion did not mean that churches or their members were entitled to a different tax status from those of other taxpayers. Agreements between a State and a church, by which the church was granted a special tax status, did not in principle contravene the requirements inherent in Articles 9 and 14, as long as there was objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment and other churches could enter into similar agreements with the State if they so desired. Yet neither the church of which the applicants were members nor the Spanish Federation of Evangelical Churches had sought to enter into an agreement with the State whereby they would be allocated a proportion of income tax. With regard to the special tax arrangements enjoyed by the Catholic Church, the requirement for a church to enter into an agreement with the State in order to receive a proportion of income-tax revenue did not appear unfounded or disproportionate. Moreover, in the light of the margin of appreciation afforded to S tates, particularly in their relations with religious denominations, such a requirement could not be regarded as a discriminatory interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion. Indeed, the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in such matters wa s all the more justified as there were no common European standards on funding churches or religious denominations. Furthermore, Spanish tax legislation did not force taxpayers to pay part of their taxes to the Catholic Church: manifestly ill-founded.

© C ouncil of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes