The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is considering whether Greece violates human rights law by displaying Orthodox Christian icons in courtrooms, in a case brought by the Union of Atheists v. Greece.
Legal analyst Adina Portaru said the case goes beyond a single image of Jesus Christ and instead requires the Strasbourg court to clarify what “state neutrality” entails under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). She argued the ruling could affect courtrooms and public buildings across all 46 member states of the Council of Europe.
The applicants claimed the icon breaches Articles 6 and 9 of the ECHR, which protect the right to a fair trial and freedom of religion or belief. They argued that the symbol undermines judicial impartiality, particularly in cases involving religious disputes.
Greek courts rejected the claim, ruling that the icon reflects a long-standing national tradition and does not affect the fairness or objectivity of judicial proceedings.
Portaru pointed to the ECtHR’s landmark Grand Chamber ruling in Lautsi v. Italy, where the court allowed crucifixes in Italian public school classrooms. The court described the crucifix as a “passive” symbol and found no indoctrination or coercion.
She said that Strasbourg case law also requires courts to assess alleged bias on the basis of concrete evidence, not personal discomfort. She cited Piersack v. Belgium, in which the ECtHR held that subjective perceptions do not establish a breach of impartiality unless the doubts can be objectively justified. Portaru also cited Pitkevich v. Russia to argue that the presence of a religious symbol alone does not meet the threshold for a Convention violation without proof of pressure, discrimination, or influence.
Portaru said the applicants’ argument treats neutrality as the absence of all religious reference, but she argued the Convention does not require that. She said the ECHR defines neutrality as restraint — meaning states must avoid coercion and proselytism, not erase cultural or historical religious symbols.
She warned that removing long-standing religious symbols does not automatically create neutrality. Instead, she argued, it risks replacing one worldview with another by imposing a substantive secular vision of public space.
Portaru said the ECtHR has repeatedly granted states a wide “margin of appreciation” in regulating religion in public life, particularly where historical tradition plays a role. She referenced Leyla Şahin v. Turkey and S.A.S. v. France as examples.
She also argued Greece’s Orthodox icons form part of national tradition and constitutional identity, while their display does not compel litigants to participate in religious practice or indicate judicial bias.
Portaru said comparative European practice supports Greece’s position, noting that religious and historically rooted symbols remain visible in courts and public institutions across several countries. She pointed to Italy’s crucifixes in state institutions, religious artwork in historic court buildings in Austria and Spain, and crosses displayed in government offices in Bavaria. She added that even France has accepted religious imagery in public buildings when it serves cultural or historical purposes rather than confessional ones.
Portaru said the case offers the ECtHR an opportunity to reaffirm that neutrality under the Convention protects pluralism by allowing traditions to coexist, provided that states avoid compulsion or exclusion.
She warned that if the court equates neutrality with the systematic removal of religious symbols, it could turn a principle meant to protect freedom into a tool for enforcing uniformity.
(Source: Oxford Human Rights Hub)
Adina Portaru serves as Senior Counsel for ADF International, where she focuses on freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression in the European Union, as well as on litigation before the European Court of Human Rights. Prior to joining ADF International, she was a research assistant at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and at the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Austria, where she assessed human rights policies. She obtained her doctorate in Law and Religion at Karl Franzens University in Austria.
Remembering George Michael: The Secret Philanthropist Behind the Music Icon