Information Note on the Court’s case-law 200

October 2016

Travaš v. Croatia - 75581/13

Judgment 4.10.2016 [Section II]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Respect for private life

Religious education teacher’s dismissal following withdrawal of canonical mandate: no violation

Facts – The applicant was employed by the State to teach Catholic religious education in schools. Following his divorce and civil re-marriage, the Church withdrew his canonical mandate and he was dismissed. In his application to the European Court he complained that his dismissal had constituted an unjustified interference with the exercise of his right to private and family life.

Law – Article 8: The Court held that the applicant’s dismissal amounted to an interference with his private life. That interference was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church. As to whether it had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court referred to the general principles set out in Fernández Martínez v. Spain , and in particular: the status of the applicant, the exposure of his situation, the State’s responsibility as an employer, the severity of the sanction and the review by the domestic courts.

The Court noted that the applicant was a layman teacher of Catholic religious education, employed and paid by the State. An agreement between the Holy Sea and Croatia on education and cultural affairs had made it necessary to hold a canonical mandate to teach Catholic religious education. During the domestic proceedings the applicant had conceded that he had been aware of the consequences of his conduct on his mandate to teach Catholic religious education. It followed that when accepting the job, he had been aware of the importance of the sacrament of matrimony for the Church. He had brought himself into a situation in which he lost his canonical mandate to perform that function. The fact that no publicity had been given to his conduct and lifestyle, seen by the Church as being contrary to the precepts of its teaching and doctrine, was not a decisive element in the assessment of the consequences of the decision on the applicant’s dismissal. The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the applicant had not been dismissed directly following the withdrawal of his canonical mandate by the Church. The schools terminated his contract of employment only after examining the possibility of finding him another suitable post. The applicant had been given a right to an indemnity and it had been open to him to claim unemployment benefit. The Court took the view that this represented a particularly important effort by the State to find a balance in the protection of his private and professional positions and the exercise of the Church’s autonomy. There was no doubt that the applicant’s dismissal had constituted a sanction entailing serious consequences. However, his dismissal was not directly and unconditionally related to the withdrawal of his canonical mandate but was rather a result of an objective impossibility to find another suitable post for him.  It had been open for him to seek other employment in the education system by teaching courses of ethics and culture.  The applicant had been able to complain about his dismissal before the competent domestic courts and to lodge a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court had examined in detail the special arrangement between the State and the Catholic Church on Catholic religious education in the State education system.  It had also examined the reasonableness of the requirement to hold a canonical mandate to teach religious education and its proximity to the mission of disseminating the Church’s teachings. The Court found that the domestic courts had taken into account all the relevant factors and had weighed up the interests at stake in depth and detail. Their conclusions did not appear unreasonable. The Court concluded that, having regard to the State’s margin of appreciation, the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life had not been disproportionate.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

(See Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], 56030/07, 12 June 2014, Information Note 175 )

© 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