JOI NT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON AND JAMBREK

In this case we find a violation both of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (P1-2) and of Article 9 of the Convention (art. 9). In this we disagree with the judgment. On the other points set out in the operative provisions of the judgment we voted in the same way as the majority of the judges.

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2)

Mr and Mrs Efstratiou alleged that there is a breach of this Article (P1-2) where pupils, like their daughter Sophia, are forced as part of their school duties to take part in organised events imbued with a symbolism that is contrary to the most deeply held religious and philosophical convictions of their parents.  This applies even more where the events are held in a public place, outside school, on a national holiday with the intention of delivering a messa ge to the community concerned. According to Mr and Mrs Efstratiou , the pupils are thus obliged to show publicly, by their acts, that they adhere to beliefs contrary to those of their parents.

In our opinion, Mr and Mrs Efstratiou ’ s perception of the symbolism of the school parade and its religious and philosophical connotations has to be accepted by the Court unless it is obviously unfounded and unreasonable.

We do not think that the opinions of Mr and Mrs Efstratiou were obvious ly unfounded and unreasonable. Even if their daughter ’ s participation in the parade would only have taken up part of one day and the punishment for not attending was, in objective terms, not severe, the episode was capable of disturbing both the parents and the girl and humiliating Sophia.  Commemorations of national events are valuable to most people, but the Efstratiou family was under no obligation to hold that opinion with regard to the parade at issue in this case.  Neither is it an argument against finding a violation that the participation was part of Sophia ’ s education, because the nature of such school activities is not neutral and they do not form part of the usual school curriculum.

For these reasons we find a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).

Article 9 (art. 9)

Sophia Efstratiou stated that the parade she did not participate in had a character and symbolism that were clearly contrary to her neutralist, pacifist , and thus religious, beliefs. We are of the opinion that the Court has to accept that and we find no basis for seeing Sophia ’ s participation in this parade as necessary in a democratic society, even if this public event clearly was for most people an expression of national values and unity.

We therefore find a violation of Article 9 ( art. 9).

[1] The case is numbered 77/1996/696/888.  The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9).  They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[3] Case no. 74/1995/580/666.

[4] For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the registry.