Dimitras and Others v. France No. 2 (nos. 34207/08 and 6365/09) - Chamber Judgment 3 November 2011 (in French only). The applicants, Mr Panayote Dimitras, Mr Grigoris Vallianatos, and Mrs Nafsika Papanikolatou, are Greek nationals. They are statutory representatives of the International Helsinki Foundation, a non-governmental organisation working for the defence of human rights. In that capacity they took part in a number of criminal cases as witnesses. At each hearing the competent judicial authority would ask the applicants to place their right hand on the Bible and take the oath. The applicants would then inform the judicial authorities that they were not Orthodox Christians and would make a solemn declaration instead. Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, they complained that on a number of occasions when taking the oath at court hearings, they had been obliged to reveal their religious beliefs, and that there was no remedy in domestic law by which to have this complaint examined. The Court held that violations of both Article 9 and Article 13 had occurred in these cases.
Samina v. Sweden (no. 55463/09) - Chamber Judgment 20 October 2011. Applicant is a Pakistani Christian. She sought asylum in Sweden in 2007, and was refused by a final court decision in 2009. She claimed that her return to Pakistan would result, because of her religion, in treatment in violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), as she would face a risk of being arrested, tortured and executed on charges of blasphemy, either by the authorities or religious fundamentalists due to her activities for a Christian organization. She also maintained that she would not be able to afford treatment upon her return to Pakistan for her poor mental health and complained that separation from a partner would violate Article 8 (right to family and private life) and moreover that she had suffered from ineffective counsel in violation of Article 13.
In a Fifth Section judgment of 20 October 2011, the Court declared that among the applicant's complaints only the Article 3 complaint was admissible, and in respect to that complaint the Court found no violation, as "there are no indications that the situation in Pakistan is sufficiently serious to conclude that the return of the applicant thereto would constitute, in itself, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention." At the same time, the Court decided "to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to expel the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or further order."
Dojan and Others v. Germany (nos. 319/08, 2455/08, 7908/10, 8152/10, 8155/12) - Admissibility Decision 13 September 2011. The case consolidates the applications to the Court of five German families, including young children, who are members of the Christian Evangelical Baptist Church and hold strong moral beliefs as part of their faith. They object to the mandatory sex education classes that form part of the fourth-year curriculum in the German primary school and to periodic mandatory workshops by school personnel for children aged 7 to 9 years, consisting of role-playing scenarios intended to raise awareness of the problem of sexual abuse of children by strangers or family members. Prevention of sexual abuse is part of the official curriculum. The workshops present situations in which sexual abuse can occur, teaching children to resist and report anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Parents are informed in advance of the content and purpose of the workshops.
The applicant parents objected to the sex education in the classrooms and workshops, including materials they feel are "partly pornographic" and contrary to Christian sexual ethics. They also objected to mandatory attendance policies involving annual school-sponsored carnivals. When the parents kept their children from these events, they were fined. The fines were upheld in District Court, which held, in particular, that parents' right to educate their children and their right to freedom of religion was restricted by the State's mandate to provide for education, which was implemented by means of compulsory schooling. The court held that the transmission of knowledge about sexual violence was also within the mandate of the State. As regards the carnival celebrations, the court found they did not involve any religious activities and had the sole purpose of permitting the children to celebrate together, and since the children could attend alternative events, the State's duty of neutrality and tolerance had been observed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeals, and the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the constitutional complaints. Three of the applicant families continued to prevent their children from participating in the workshops and school events and were subject to increasing fines, which they refused to pay. They were each sentenced to up to 43 days imprisonment.
Relying on ECHR Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education) and Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant families brought complaints before the Court in 2007, 2008, and 2010.
"The Court had previously found that the German system of compulsory elementary school attendance [was] aimed at ensuring the integration of children into society with a view to avoiding the emergence of parallel society. These considerations were in line with the Court's case law on the importance of pluralism for democracy." Accordingly, the German authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation in fining the parents for keeping the children from school, and the fines themselves were not arbitrary or excessive. The prison sentences were solely a means to enforce payment obligations.
The Court held that no separate issues arose under Articles 8 & 9 and found all applications inadmissible.