28 Sep Refusal to rectify a prisoner’s religion data in his prison file did not violate the Convention

In the case of Mariș v. Romania (application no. 58208/14, 22.10.2020) the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority declared the application inadmissible. 

The case concerns the refusal of the Romanian authorities to amend, upon a mere declaration by Mr Mariş, the entry giving his religion in the register of Miercurea-Ciuc prison. The applicant described himself to the Court as Jewish. He stated that in 2013, while being held in Miercurea-Ciuc prison, he realised that he had been wrongly listed in the prison registers as an Orthodox Christian. He asked for the relevant entry to be rectified, but the prison administration replied that he had to produce a certificate issued by the representatives of the religious denomination or association to which he claimed to belong. 

The applicant mainly alleged that his rights under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention had been breached. 

The Court did not detect any violation of Mr Mariş’s right to respect for his religion and considered the application to be manifestly ill-founded. It noted in particular that Mr Mariş’s complaint had been one of a rather abstract and theoretical nature in so far as he had not alleged that the prison authorities had limited, in any way whatsoever, the possibility for him actually to manifest his religion.

The Court also observed that, although he had been imprisoned in 2002, he had not filed an application to have his file rectified until 2013. However, he had not alleged either before the domestic courts or before the Court that during this period his freedom to manifest his religion had been restricted in any way. Even assuming that, as he had alleged before the Court, he had been automatically registered as an Orthodox Christian and had not been consulted at any time about his religion, the Court found that the entry in his file had been of no consequence in terms of the possibility for him to manifest his religion. It further noted that the entry in his file had not been intended for public consultation or for use in daily life, but that it had been accessible only to the prison authority.

The applicant also has not informed the Court of any refusal by the authorities to grant any request from him concerning the fulfilment of his religious obligations, for example the need to meet a representative of his faith, to attend religious services or to be served meals permitted by his religion. More generally he had not alleged that the prison authorities had prevented him from engaging in any acts of worship in accordance with his faith.

The Court thus found that there had been no violation of the right to freedom of religion provided for in Article 9 of the Convention. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights