A European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision condemns Turkey and vindicates two clergy members of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, ruling that their fundamental rights were violated. The case concerns their exclusion from the administration of minority institutions in Constantinople.
The two Greek Orthodox clergy members, who participated in administrative councils of minority institutions (waqfs) in Constantinople, were removed by decision of the General Directorate of Foundations, under the justification that as clergy they cannot hold administrative positions in institutions.
The case background
The two clergy members had been elected in 2011 to administrative councils of minority institutions of the Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople. They were Nikolaos Mavrakis, who as clergy bore the name Gennadios, and Georgios Kasapoglou, who had been elected to the institution of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Ascension of Ypsomatheia.
The Greek institution of Ypsomatheia submitted the relevant election minutes to the General Directorate of Foundations on December 16, 2011. However, on March 5, 2012, the General Directorate decided to remove the two clergy members from the administrative bodies, due to their clerical status, invoking the Treaty of Lausanne. According to the Directorate of Foundations, the clergy had no right to assume administrative duties in such institutions.
In 2008, following a special agreement between the then foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey, Dora Bakoyannis and Abdullah Gul, Turkish legislation provided for the conduct of elections for the emergence of administrations of non-Muslim waqfs.
However, Turkish authorities insisted on the practice of not recognizing the right of clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be elected. Only lay members of the Greek Orthodox community are allowed to participate and be elected.
The interested parties immediately appealed to Turkish courts, arguing that the Waqf Regulation contained no provision prohibiting the participation of clergy in the administrations of institutions. At first instance, Turkish courts vindicated them, ruling that there was no legal basis for excluding them from the administrative councils.
However, the General Directorate of Foundations appealed, resulting in the case reaching the Turkish Council of State, which ruled that civil and not administrative courts were competent to examine such decisions. This development led to a multi-year legal dispute in Turkish courts, which lasted approximately a decade.
The case also reached Turkey’s Constitutional Court, which, in 2024, ruled that there was a violation of freedom of association, due to excessive delays in the procedure. However, it did not address the substance of the issue, namely whether clergy had the right to be elected to administrative councils of institutions.
Following this decision, the two clergy members appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which on May 25, 2026 ruled that there was a violation of both freedom of association and religious freedom. The Court found that the applicants were prevented from participating in institutions that manage churches, schools and other organizations of the Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople.
The ECHR decision
The ECHR found that the Ecumenical Patriarchate clergy Georgios Kasapoglou and Nikolaos Mavrakis suffered violation of their rights to freedom of association and religious freedom.
The Court ruled that Turkish authorities did not present sufficient and clear legal basis for their exclusion, noting that “there was no clear, accessible and foreseeable legal basis that could justify the intervention” of Turkey’s General Directorate of Foundations.
The Court also decided on compensation of 2,000 euros to each applicant, as well as coverage of legal costs by Turkey.
“Historic decision for the Patriarchate – overturns 100-year practice”
The case before the ECHR was handled by lawyers Paris Asanakis and Stefanos Stavrou, a lawyer in Strasbourg with extensive experience in cases before the European Court of Human Rights, who played a decisive role, systematically refuting all claims of the Turkish side.
Speaking to ANA-MPA, the legal counsel of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and advocate of the two clergy, Paris Asanakis, characterized the decision as “of historic significance.” As he points out, the decision does not only concern the current dispute, but changes a practice of decades for the Greek community of Constantinople.
This decision, as he explained to ANA-MPA, is considered historic for two reasons.
“The first is that for 100 years Turkish authorities considered that, because there was the protocol of the Treaty of Lausanne that said the Ecumenical Patriarchate remains in Constantinople under the condition that it would be limited to its spiritual duties only, they interpreted it to mean that priests and any member of the Patriarchate, have no right to deal with public affairs.” He emphasizes that this interpretation had no legal foundation.
The role of the Venice Commission
Invoking, at the same time, an opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, he pointed out that the international legal framework has already moved toward protecting minority rights.
“Even if the Treaty of Lausanne provided for it, based on the Venice Commission, due to the fact that there have been subsequent international instruments to which Turkey has acceded, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, such a right could not be restricted anyway. That is, neither the right of the Patriarchate to use the term ‘ecumenical’, nor, by extension, the right of a priest to exercise the rights that lay people exercise in a Greek Orthodox community.”
The Patriarchate’s legal counsel emphasizes that the decision has both symbolic and practical significance for the Constantinople diaspora, as it opens the way for clergy to be elected to Constantinople diaspora institutions in the next elections.
Violation of religious freedom
The basic breakthrough of the decision is that for the first time the ECHR explicitly recognizes that Turkey did not only violate administrative or property rights of minority communities, but directly attacked religious freedom. The Court did not only focus on the issue of clergy participation in administrative councils of waqfs, but ruled that their removal, due to their status as clergy, constitutes interference with the very core of their religious identity and action.
The decision recognizes that a clergy member does not lose his rights as a citizen and member of a community due to his clerical status. On the contrary, his status as a religious functionary cannot be used as a reason for exclusion from participation in the affairs of ecclesiastical institutions, such as waqfs.
A critical point of the decision is also that the ECHR directly connects religious freedom with the pluralism of a democratic society. That is, it recognizes that religious communities are not only places of worship, but also living organisms that have the right to organize their administration, property and activities with the participation of their members, regardless of whether they are clergy or lay people.
“Pluralism is based on the genuine recognition and respect for cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, and the harmonious interaction between individuals and groups with different identities is essential for social cohesion,” the decision states, adding that “associations established, particularly for preserving cultural or spiritual heritage, for promoting social or economic purposes, for teaching a religion or for defending ethnic or minority identity, play a fundamental role in the functioning of a democratic society.”
In practice, this decision, according to Mr. Asanakis, constitutes a ‘precedent’, as it recognizes that the exclusion of clergy from the administration of ecclesiastical institutions is not simply an administrative issue, but may constitute a violation of religious freedom.
“The decision opens the way, so that similar cases in the future will be examined primarily as issues of religious rights and freedom of religious expression,” he notes, pointing out at the same time that new appeals by clergy are already pending before the European Court, with the same framework of arguments and for which – as estimated – a similar ruling is expected.
