CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE GAETANO

1 . While I agree that in this case there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, it is pertinent to underscore the very narrow ground on which this violation is based. It should be clear from paragraphs 79 to 83 of the judgment that the problem in this case was the insufficiency of the reasons provided by the domestic courts in their considerations upholding the SCRPA ’ s decision. This judgment does not give carte blanche to the use of religious symbols, whatever the medium, context or message intended or tending to be conveyed, whether directly or otherwise. As was stated in § 26 of İ.A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII), a “State may ... legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain form of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others ... ”. In the instant case, however, there was nothing in the three adverts in question (which, incidentally, can still be viewed online) which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as either offensive, much less as amounting to any form of vilification of religion or religious symbols, and which could be construed as justifying an interference “for the protection of ... the rights of others”. The fact that the head of the male figure bore some resemblance to the way in which the image of Christ is depicted in classical art, and the use of the words “Jesus” and “Mary” (see paragraphs 7-9 of the judgment) cannot conceivably, by or of themselves, or in combination, be regarded as violating “public morals”. Moreover, the very fact that both the male and the female figure in the adverts displayed tattoos should have been indicative that those figures could not be considered as representations of the historical Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary – see Leviticus 19:28. This point does not appear to have been given appropriate weight by anyone.

2 . In short, this is a case which should not even have been brought to the attention of the SCRPA. What is even more surprising is that the “warning”, as it were, by the President of the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 26) was dismissed for reasons which appear to be totally detached from reality (see paragraphs 28 and 29).

3 . Finally, if the adverts were considered as somehow inappropriate, one wonders whether it would have been more effective to advise the faithful to boycott the firm using the adverts, rather than to provoke court litigation which twice ended up before the Supreme Administrative Court.