Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206

April 2017

Klein and Others v. Germany - 10138/11

Judgment 6.4.2017 [Section V]

Article 9

Article 9-1

Freedom of religion

Married couple’s joint liability to church tax on account of wife’s membership of church: no violation

Facts – The first applicant’s wife was a member of the Protestant Church, which under German law was a public-law entity authorised to levy chur ch taxes. The first applicant was not himself a member of the Church. For the tax assessment period of 2008 the couple opted for a joint tax assessment. They received a tax bill which included a special church fee (a form of church tax) for the first appli cant’s wife of EUR 2,220. Since the wife’s income was below the minimum taxable amount that sum was calculated as a proportion of her living expenses, which in turn were calculated on the basis of the spouses’ joint income. The amount of EUR 2,220 was offs et against a tax reimbursement owed to the first applicant leaving a balance in his favour of EUR 1,203.

Before the European Court, the first applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 9 of the Convention that he had been compelled to pay the special church fee levied on his wife without himself being a member of that church.

Law – Article 9: The situation brought about by the German legislation whereby the first applicant was subjected to his wife’s financial obligations towards her church without him self being a member of it constituted an interference with the negative aspect (the right not to be compelled to be involved in religious activities against one’s will) of the applicant’s rights under Article 9 of the Convention. That interference was pres cribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of guaranteeing the rights of churches and religious communities under German law to levy church taxes.

Taking into account the wide margin of appreciation left to Contracting States with regard to the definiti on of the relations between churches and the State the domestic authorities had adduced relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the tax authorities’ offsetting the claims of the Protestant Church on his wife against the first applicant’s reimbursement c laims, without, in the first place, obtaining the first applicant’s consent to such a calculation. The Court so found for the following reasons.

(i) It was the decision of the first applicant and his spouse to make a joint tax declaration which had led to the two separate tax claims being handled together in administrative terms. The administrative mechanism could have been undone by applying for a settlement notice.*

(ii) There was nothing to indicate that applying for a settlement notice would have caused the first applicant any financial burden, taken up much of his time or entailed any further consequences.

(iii) As regards the first applicant’s argument that the tax bill contained no information on available remedies for the offsetting, the Convention did not guarantee, as such, the right to be informed of available domestic remedies.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

* Under German law, either spouse can f ile an objection against that part of the tax bill which applies to them. If the special church fee has been offset against a tax reimbursement due to the spouse who is not a member of a church that spouse can apply for a settlement notice in accordance wi th Article 218 of the Fiscal Code and thus have the possibility to be repaid the offset amount.

© Council 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