ECHR judgment of 25 June 2020 in the case "Stavropoulos and others v. Greece" (aplication No. 52484/18).
in 2018, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of the aplicaton. The aplicaton was subsequently communicated to Greece.
In the case, an aplicaton was successfully considered against the inclusion in the birth certificate of the applicants ' daughter of marks indicating that they decided not to baptize their daughter. The case violated the requirements of article 9 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The three applicants in the case are the parents and their daughter. In the birth certificate of the daughter before her name by hand, the abbreviation of the word "Naming" (Oνοματοδοσία) was added in parentheses. In addition, a graph of the birth certificate relating to baptism, was left blank. The Supreme administrative court rejected the request for annulment of the daughter's birth certificate as unacceptable for consideration on the merits.
The "Naming" mark next to the daughter's name and the fact that the column concerning the baptism was left blank suggested that the parents had decided not to baptize the child. As this information was contained in a document issued by the state, this constituted an interference with the right of all applicants not to be forced to profess their views. Given the frequent use of the birth certificate, the fact that it contained information about religious views exposed the persons concerned to the risk of discrimination when interacting with the administrative authorities.
This intervention was not provided for by law. Under Greek law, an individual gets his or her name as a result of being named. Thus, it did not follow from this law, nor from any other acts submitted to the European Court, that the registration authorities had to add the word "Naming" before the names of newborns who received a name as a result of a civil act of naming, as opposed to baptism. The intervention in question was the result of a widespread practice in registration authorities.
The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 9 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
In the application of article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.