BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v. ICELAND - 2525/65 [1967] ECHR 24 (06 February 1967) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1967/2525_65.html Cite as: [1967] ECHR 24 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
THE FACTS Whereas the facts as presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant is an Icelandic citizen, born in 1919 and at present living in Reykjavik. He states that, in accordance with the custom in Iceland, he was baptised when he was only a few weeks old. This implied, in his submission, that the clergyman, the witnesses and his parents concluded on his behalf "a baptismal covenant with Jehovah in Heaven". Later, he was also confirmed and on that occasion he had to confess his belief in Jehovah. He states that he is no longer prepared to "abide by the baptismal covenant" forced upon him as a child and he has, therefore, tried to have his baptism annulled. For this purpose, he instituted proceedings against the Bishop of Iceland before the Town Court of Reykjavik, but his claim was dismissed by the Court. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. He states that, according to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, he has the right to profess his "own beliefs, convictions and thoughts" and he asks for "a binding decision that my baptism and confirmation are annulled, making it clear that this be a full cancellation of the promise I was forced to make at my baptism and subsequent confirmation". As his appeals to the Icelandic courts have been unsuccessful he also considers that he has not had an effective remedy according to Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW Whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Articles 9, 10 and 13; whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.
