Buscarini and Others v. San Marino
Encyclopedia
Buscarini and Others v. San Marino (application No. 24645/94) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights
in 1999.
(the parliament of the Republic of San Marino) in 1993. They requested permission from the Captains-Regent to take the oath required by the Elections Act
without reference to any religious text. The Act referred to a decree of 27 June 1909, which laid down the wording of the oath to be taken by members of the parliament as follows: "I, …, swear on the Holy Gospels [..]". The applicants originally took the oath in writing, omitting the reference to Gospels. Their oath was considered invalid, and the applicants took the oath on the Gospels, maintaining their protest.
concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9. Sammarinese government maintained that the reaffirmation of traditional values represented by the taking of the oath was necessary in order to maintain public order.
The Court concluded that requiring the applicants to take the oath on the Gospels was tantamount to requiring two elected representatives of the people to swear allegiance to a particular religion, a requirement which is not compatible with Article 9 of the Convention. As the Commission rightly stated in its report, it would be contradictory to make the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs (Para. 39). The Court unanimously held that there was a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR (freedom of conscience).
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
in 1999.
Facts
The applicants, Cristoforo Buscarini and Emilio Della Balda, were elected to the General Grand CouncilGrand and General Council
The Grand and General Council is the parliament of San Marino. The council has 60 members elected for a five-year term.The electoral law was based on proportional representation from 1945 to 2007. Since then, it is based on the electoral system of Italian municipalities...
(the parliament of the Republic of San Marino) in 1993. They requested permission from the Captains-Regent to take the oath required by the Elections Act
Oath of office
An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations...
without reference to any religious text. The Act referred to a decree of 27 June 1909, which laid down the wording of the oath to be taken by members of the parliament as follows: "I, …, swear on the Holy Gospels [..]". The applicants originally took the oath in writing, omitting the reference to Gospels. Their oath was considered invalid, and the applicants took the oath on the Gospels, maintaining their protest.
Proceedings and judgment
In 1997, the European Commission of Human RightsEuropean Commission of Human Rights
European Commission of Human Rights was a special tribunal.From 1954 to the entry into force of Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, individuals did not have direct access to the European Court of Human Rights; they had to apply to the Commission, which if it found the case to be...
concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9. Sammarinese government maintained that the reaffirmation of traditional values represented by the taking of the oath was necessary in order to maintain public order.
The Court concluded that requiring the applicants to take the oath on the Gospels was tantamount to requiring two elected representatives of the people to swear allegiance to a particular religion, a requirement which is not compatible with Article 9 of the Convention. As the Commission rightly stated in its report, it would be contradictory to make the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs (Para. 39). The Court unanimously held that there was a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR (freedom of conscience).