| X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

APPLICATION/REQUETE N° 6167/ 73 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY X . c/RÉPUBLIQUE FÉDERALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 18 December 1974 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 18 décembre 1974 sur la recevabilité de la requêt e
Article 9 of the Convention : Marriage cannot be considered simply as a torm of expression of thought, conscience or religion but is governed by the specific provisions of Article 12. Article 12 of the Convention : An obligation to contract a marriage in accordance with forms prescribed by law rather than a perticular religious ritual is not a refusal of the right to marry. Articfe 9 de fe Convention : Le mariage ne peut être considéré que comme une forme d'expression d'une pensée, de la conscience cu d'une religion . Il est régi par les dispositions spécifiques de l'article 12 de la Convention : L'obligation de contracter mariage selon les formes pres.Article12 crites par la loi eu lieu d'un rituel religieux particulier, n'est pas un refus du droit au mariage .
THE FACTS
I français : voir p . 65)
The facts of the case as submi tted by the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a German citizen born in 1924 and living in Heidelberg . The applicant complains that the German authorities do not recognise his marriage with Mrs Y . The registrar of marriages refused to make an ent ry in the family record IFamilienbuchl because the applicant had not married under the forms prescribed by Sec . 11 of the Law on Marriages IEhegesetzl . The applicant complained to the competent District Cou rt (Amtsgericht) which rejected his complaint on . . . May 1972 . The applicant's appeal IBeschwerdel was rejected by the Regional Court (Landgericht) Heidelberg on . . . September 1972 . A further appeal (weitere Beschwerde) was rejected by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) Karlsruhe on . . . March 1973 . The latter cou rt stated in its decision that in the opinion of the applicant he is married to Y . because he had intercourse with her only after having read out verse 16 of the 22nd chapter of the second book of Moses in the Old Testament . The Court held that the right to marriage as guaranteed under A rt . 6 (1) of the Constitution IGGI only referred to the conclusion of marriage in the form provided by the legislator in Sec . 11 of the Law on Marriages . In the opinion of the cou rt Art . 6 IGGI not only gives the State the right but even creates the obligation for the State to set up regulations for marriages as it is a social institution . Therefore, so the cou rt concluded, the necessity of contracting a marriage in proper form before the registrar of marriages was justified under constitutional law . The applicani's constitutional appeal was rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Cou rt on . . . June 1973 as being clearly ill-founded . The applicant alleges a violation of most of the A rticles of the Convention and especially of A rt . 9 (1) . THE LA W The applicant has complained that the German authorities do not recognise his marriage contracted according to a special religious ritual and not in the forms presaibed by the Law on Marriages .
-64-
It is true that Article 9 (1) of the Convention secures to everyone the right to freedom of religion : However, in this case this provision cannot be considered without having regard to Article 12 which provides that "Men and women of marriageablu age have the right to marry and found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right" . Marriage is not considered simply as a form of expression of thought, conscience or religion but is governed by the specific provision of Article 12 which refers to the national laws governing the exercise of the right to marry . In the present case the applicant was not denied the right to marry . He was onl y requested to marry under the forms prescribed by German law . Ttiere is consequently no appearance of a violation of the Convention . especially of Articles 9( 1) and 12 . An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in pa rticular in the above Article . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . Résumé des faits L'oltice d'état civil de Heidelberg a refusé d'inscrire le mariage du requérent au registre des mariages, au motif qu'il n'avait pas été célébré selon les formes prescrites A l'article 11 de la loi sur le mariage IEhegesetzl . Recours rejetés successivement par le tribunal cantonal IAmtsgerichtl, le tribunal régional (Landgericht) et la cour d'appel IOberlandesgerichtl . Recours constitutionnel rejeté par un comité de trois juges de la Cour constitutionne/le fédérale comme manifestement mal fondé . Le requérant se prétend valablement marié parce quila lu B haute voix le verset 16 du 22éme chapitre du /léme Livre de Moi'se avant ses premiéres relations sexuelles avec la personne qu'il considére comme son épouse . Il invoque l'article 9, paragraphe 1, de la Convention .
Résumé des considérants rr En droit » L'anic/e 9, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, qui garantit la liberté de religion, doit être envisagé conjointement, en /'espéce, avec l'artic% 12 . Le mariage n'est pas considéré parla Convention que comme une forme d'expression d'une pensée, de la conscience ou d'une religion. ll est régi par les dispositions spécitiques de l'article 12, qui se rélére au droit national.
En /'espéce, le requArant ne s'est pas vu refuser le droit au mariage, mais seulement imposer les conditions de formes prescrites par le droit allemarfd . Il n'y a donc pas apparence de violation des articles 9, paragraphe 1, ou 12 de le Convention . Requéte manifestement mal fondée .
- 65 -