In order to be able to correctly explore the meaning that the concepts of religion and religious confession have for Hellenic case law, the paper considers it essential to account for some peculiarities that characterize the Greek legal system: on one hand, the unique bond in place between the Eastern Christian Church and the Hellenic Republic and, on the other hand, the remarkable - and consequent - significance of the Orthodox religious precept in the regulatory framework of the latter. On this point, the paper will endeavour to demonstrate the considerable importance, in terms of jurisprudence, of the phenomenon of “heterointegration” consisting of the subsumption of the fundamental dogmas of the Orthodox creed in the regulatory order, and even as part of the constitutional status, introduced by the preamble in which the Holy, Indivisible, Consubstantial Trinity is invoked. The jurisprudence that will be examined (so scarce that there appears to be a substantial lack of debate on the issue) never forgets the “heterointegrated” nature of the legal system, while it does not appear to perceive, in most cases, the objective lack of balance that this causes in terms of protecting the declinations of the right of religious freedom of individuals and of non-Orthodox confessional communities living within the territory of the State. In the first instance, the paper sets out to show how the role of the “predominant religion” attributed to the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ by art. 3 par. 1 Σ is uniquely interpreted by jurisprudence and goes beyond the mere quantum criterion of the “religion professed by the overwhelming majority of the Greek population” but expressly traces back to the fact that the Orthodox Christian confession since the early centuries of its appearance until the present day, has been identified with the history and actual existence of Hellenism (ΣτΕ nn. 3768/2009; 2176/1998; 3356/1995; 3533/1986; Heraklion Court of First Instance, Crete no. 87/1986; Chania Administrative Court of Appeal, Crete no.115/2012). Alongside the “predominant” concept of religion, the paper takes into consideration the interpretation that the Greek judge offers of the concept of “known religion” of which art. 13 par. 1 Σ guarantees freedom within the limits envisaged by legislation. The fact that the religious confession is endowed with dogmas and clear beliefs, known institutions and aims and unhidden rites (see ΣτΕ nn. 2105-2106/1975; 865/1997; 494/1997; 4600/2005; 1920/2014; Athens Court of Appeal no. 5018/2011; Court of Athens no. 17115/1988), represents the requirements that allow which religious group enjoys constitutional guarantees to be set forth. Finally, the paper sets out to show how the decisions of the Hellenic judge, mainly concerning the recognition of the religious freedom of believers of different religions (e.g. the exoneration of non-orthodox students from the teaching of the Orthodox religion ΣτΕ nn. 2281/2001; 582/2011; 2176/1998, 3356/1995, 3533/1986; mixed marriages Athens Court of Appeal no. 5018/2011; civil service ΣτΕ no. 494/1997; child custody in case of separation of their parents; Court of Thessaloniki no.1080/1995; right to confidentiality regarding professed faith ΣτΕ n. 3356/1995), in fact grasp every opportunity to underline how the “dominant” religion is to be considered an element for the ethnic-cultural identification of the population, a sort of “drive belt” and transplant of Orthodox awareness in citizens, so much so that orthodoxy is identified with the dimension of the national identity interwoven into the history of the Greek people, and at the same time constitutes the greatness relative to Greek civilization that continues to live in symbiosis with the Orthodox tradition (Chania Court of Appeal no. 115/2012). The voice of the Hellenic courts, from this point of view, is monophonic: “prevalent religion” does not mean State religion and however, based on the text of the constitution, a public tribute is due in all state manifestations, a pre-eminence in national feasts and the determination of the calendar of the feasts, and its teaching in public schools for a sufficient number of hours per week must be guaranteed so as to fulfil the right of Greek society (95% orthodox) to perpetuate their creed and traditions to the new generations (ΣτΕ no. 2176/1998; 3356/1995; Chania Administrative Court of Appeal, Crete no.115/2012).

Per poter approfondire correttamente il significato che i concetti di religione e di confessione religiosa assumono per la giurisprudenza ellenica, il contributo ritiene imprescindibile dar conto di alcune peculiarità che caratterizzano l'ordinamento giuridico greco: da un lato, il singolare legame sussistente fra la Chiesa orientale di Cristo e la Repubblica ellenica e dall'altro, il notevole - e conseguente - rilievo del precetto religioso ortodosso nell'impianto normativo di quest’ultima. A quest’ultimo proposito, si cercherà di dimostrare la considerevole importanza assunta, a livello giurisprudenziale, dal fenomeno di “eterointegrazione” consistente nella sussunzione dei dogmi fondamentali del credo ortodosso nel comando normativo, persino in quello di rango costituzionale, introdotto dal preambolo in cui viene invocata la Santa, Indivisibile, Consunstanziale Trinità. La giurisprudenza che si andrà ad esaminare (tanto esigua da legittimare l’impressione di una sostanziale mancanza di dibattito sul tema) non è mai dimentica della natura “eterointegrata” dell’ordinamento giuridico, mentre non pare avvedersi, nella maggior parte dei casi, dell’oggettivo sbilanciamento che la medesima provoca nel campo della tutela delle declinazioni del diritto di libertà religiosa dei singoli e delle comunità confessionali non ortodosse presenti sul territorio dello Stato. In primo luogo, il contributo si propone di dimostrare come il ruolo di “religione predominante” attribuito alla Chiesa Orientale Ortodossa di Cristo dall’art. 3 par. 1 Σ sia univocamente interpretato dalla giurisprudenza e vada al di là del mero criterio quantistico della “religione professata dalla schiacciante maggioranza del popolo greco” ma espressamente venga ricondotto al fatto che la confessione cristiana ortodossa dai primi secoli della sua comparsa ad oggi, si sia identificata con la storia e l’esistenza stessa dell’Ellenismo (ΣτΕ nn. 3768/2009; 2176/1998; 3356/1995; 3533/1986; Tribunale collegiale di primo grado di Irakleion, Creta n. 87/1986; Corte d’Appello Amministrativa di Chania, Creta n.115/2012). Accanto al concetto di religione “predominante” il contributo prende in esame l’interpretazione che il giudice greco offre del concetto di “religione conosciuta” cui l’art. 13 par. 1 Σ garantisce libertà nei limiti previsti dalla norma. La circostanza che la confessione religiosa sia dotata di dogmi e credenze manifeste, istituti e finalità noti e riti non occulti (cfr. ΣτΕ nn. 2105-2106/1975; 865/1997; 494/1997; 4600/2005; 1920/2014; Corte d’Appello di Atene n. 5018/2011; Tribunale di Atene n. 17115/1988), rappresentano i requisiti che consentono di enucleare quale gruppo religioso goda delle garanzie costituzionali. Da ultimo l’intervento si propone di dimostrare come le decisioni del giudice ellenico, perlopiù emanate in tema di riconoscimento della libertà religiosa dei fedeli di religioni diverse (per es. in tema di esonero degli studenti non ortodossi dall’insegnamento della religione ortodossa ΣτΕ nn. 2281/2001; 582/2011; 2176/1998, 3356/1995, 3533/1986; matrimoni misti Corte d’Appello di Atene n. 5018/2011; di servizio civile ΣτΕ n. 494/1997; di affidamento della prole minore in caso di separazione; Tribunale di Salonicco n.1080/1995; di diritto alla riservatezza circa la fede professata ΣτΕ n. 3356/1995), colgano di fatto ogni occasione per ribadire come la religione “dominante” sia da considerare quale elemento di identificazione etnico-culturale della popolazione, una sorta di “cinghia di trasmissione” e di trapianto della coscienza ortodossa nei cittadini, tanto che l’ortodossia viene identificata con la dimensione della identità nazionale intessuta nella storia del popolo greco, e costituisce al contempo la grandezza relativa alla civiltà greca che continua a trovarsi in simbiosi con la tradizione ortodossa (Corte d’Appello Amministrativa di Canea n. 115/2012). La voce dei tribunali ellenici, sotto questo profilo è monofonica: “religione prevalente” non significa religione ufficiale dello Stato e tuttavia alla Chiesa orientale cristiano-ortodossa, sulla base del dettato costituzionale, è dovuto un pubblico omaggio in tutte le manifestazioni statali, una preminenza nelle feste nazionali e nella determinazione del calendario delle feste, ne va assicurato l’insegnamento nelle scuole pubbliche per un adeguato numero di ore settimanali, in modo da soddisfare il diritto della società greca (al 98% di fede ortodossa) a trasmettere e perpetuare il proprio credo e le proprie tradizioni nelle nuove generazioni (ΣτΕ nn. 2176/1998; 3356/1995; Corte d’Appello Amministrativa di Chania, Creta n.115/2012).

The meaning of ‘Religion’ in Hellenic case law

Enrica Martinelli
2017

Abstract

In order to be able to correctly explore the meaning that the concepts of religion and religious confession have for Hellenic case law, the paper considers it essential to account for some peculiarities that characterize the Greek legal system: on one hand, the unique bond in place between the Eastern Christian Church and the Hellenic Republic and, on the other hand, the remarkable - and consequent - significance of the Orthodox religious precept in the regulatory framework of the latter. On this point, the paper will endeavour to demonstrate the considerable importance, in terms of jurisprudence, of the phenomenon of “heterointegration” consisting of the subsumption of the fundamental dogmas of the Orthodox creed in the regulatory order, and even as part of the constitutional status, introduced by the preamble in which the Holy, Indivisible, Consubstantial Trinity is invoked. The jurisprudence that will be examined (so scarce that there appears to be a substantial lack of debate on the issue) never forgets the “heterointegrated” nature of the legal system, while it does not appear to perceive, in most cases, the objective lack of balance that this causes in terms of protecting the declinations of the right of religious freedom of individuals and of non-Orthodox confessional communities living within the territory of the State. In the first instance, the paper sets out to show how the role of the “predominant religion” attributed to the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ by art. 3 par. 1 Σ is uniquely interpreted by jurisprudence and goes beyond the mere quantum criterion of the “religion professed by the overwhelming majority of the Greek population” but expressly traces back to the fact that the Orthodox Christian confession since the early centuries of its appearance until the present day, has been identified with the history and actual existence of Hellenism (ΣτΕ nn. 3768/2009; 2176/1998; 3356/1995; 3533/1986; Heraklion Court of First Instance, Crete no. 87/1986; Chania Administrative Court of Appeal, Crete no.115/2012). Alongside the “predominant” concept of religion, the paper takes into consideration the interpretation that the Greek judge offers of the concept of “known religion” of which art. 13 par. 1 Σ guarantees freedom within the limits envisaged by legislation. The fact that the religious confession is endowed with dogmas and clear beliefs, known institutions and aims and unhidden rites (see ΣτΕ nn. 2105-2106/1975; 865/1997; 494/1997; 4600/2005; 1920/2014; Athens Court of Appeal no. 5018/2011; Court of Athens no. 17115/1988), represents the requirements that allow which religious group enjoys constitutional guarantees to be set forth. Finally, the paper sets out to show how the decisions of the Hellenic judge, mainly concerning the recognition of the religious freedom of believers of different religions (e.g. the exoneration of non-orthodox students from the teaching of the Orthodox religion ΣτΕ nn. 2281/2001; 582/2011; 2176/1998, 3356/1995, 3533/1986; mixed marriages Athens Court of Appeal no. 5018/2011; civil service ΣτΕ no. 494/1997; child custody in case of separation of their parents; Court of Thessaloniki no.1080/1995; right to confidentiality regarding professed faith ΣτΕ n. 3356/1995), in fact grasp every opportunity to underline how the “dominant” religion is to be considered an element for the ethnic-cultural identification of the population, a sort of “drive belt” and transplant of Orthodox awareness in citizens, so much so that orthodoxy is identified with the dimension of the national identity interwoven into the history of the Greek people, and at the same time constitutes the greatness relative to Greek civilization that continues to live in symbiosis with the Orthodox tradition (Chania Court of Appeal no. 115/2012). The voice of the Hellenic courts, from this point of view, is monophonic: “prevalent religion” does not mean State religion and however, based on the text of the constitution, a public tribute is due in all state manifestations, a pre-eminence in national feasts and the determination of the calendar of the feasts, and its teaching in public schools for a sufficient number of hours per week must be guaranteed so as to fulfil the right of Greek society (95% orthodox) to perpetuate their creed and traditions to the new generations (ΣτΕ no. 2176/1998; 3356/1995; Chania Administrative Court of Appeal, Crete no.115/2012).
2017
Martinelli, Enrica
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2379235
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact