A ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned Turkey and vindicated two clergy members of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, finding that their fundamental rights had been violated.
The case concerns their exclusion from the administration of minority foundations in Constantinople.
The two Greek Orthodox clergymen, who had served on the boards of minority foundations (vakifs) in Constantinople, were removed from their positions by a decision of the Turkish General Directorate of Foundations. The authorities argued that, as members of the clergy, they could not simultaneously hold administrative positions within foundations.
Background of the Case
The two clergymen were elected in 2011 to the boards of minority foundations belonging to the Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople. They were Nikolaos Mavrakis, who as a clergyman bore the name Gennadios, and Georgios Kasapoglou, both of whom were elected to the foundation of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Ascension in Ypsomatheia (Samatya).
The Ypsomatheia Greek foundation submitted the election record to the Turkish General Directorate of Foundations on December 16, 2011. However, on March 5, 2012, the Directorate decided to remove the two clergymen from the governing body because of their clerical status, citing the Treaty of Lausanne. According to the Directorate, members of the clergy were not entitled to hold administrative positions in such foundations.
In 2008, following a special agreement between the then Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey, Dora Bakoyannis and Abdullah Gül, Turkish legislation provided for elections to be held for the governing boards of non-Muslim foundations.
Nevertheless, the Turkish authorities maintained their practice of refusing to recognize the right of Ecumenical Patriarchate clergy to stand for election. Only lay members of the Greek Orthodox community were permitted to participate in and be elected to the governing bodies of these foundations.
The applicants immediately appealed to the Turkish courts, arguing that the Foundations Regulation contained no provision prohibiting clergy from serving on the boards of minority foundations. At first instance, the Turkish courts ruled in their favor, finding no legal basis for excluding them from the boards.
However, the General Directorate of Foundations appealed the decision, and the case eventually reached Turkey’s Council of State, which ruled that such disputes should be examined by civil courts rather than administrative courts. This development led to a lengthy legal battle in the Turkish judicial system that lasted approximately a decade.
The case also reached the Constitutional Court of Turkey, which in 2024 found a violation of the freedom of association due to excessive delays in the proceedings. However, the court did not address the substantive issue of whether clergy had the right to be elected to the governing boards of foundations.
Following that ruling, the two clergymen brought their case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). On May 25, 2026, the Court ruled that there had been violations of both the freedom of association and freedom of religion. The Court found that the applicants had been prevented from participating in foundations that administer churches, schools, and other institutions of the Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul.
The ECHR Ruling
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Ecumenical Patriarchate clergy Georgios Kasapoglou and Nikolaos Mavrakis had suffered violations of their rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion.
The Court concluded that the Turkish authorities had failed to provide an adequate and sufficiently clear legal basis for excluding them from the governing boards of minority foundations. In its judgment, the Court noted that “there was no clear, accessible, and foreseeable legal basis capable of justifying the interference” by Turkey’s General Directorate of Foundations.
The ECHR further held that the exclusion of the two clergymen from the administration of Greek Orthodox community foundations constituted an unjustified interference with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In addition, the Court ordered Turkey to pay €2,000 in compensation to each applicant and to cover the legal costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings.
“Historic Ruling for the Patriarchate – Overturns a Century-Old Practice”
The case before the European Court of Human Rights was handled by lawyers Paris Asanakis and Stephanos Stavrou, a Strasbourg-based attorney with extensive experience before the European Court of Human Rights. According to reports, the two lawyers played a decisive role in the proceedings, systematically and effectively rebutting the arguments put forward by the Turkish side.
Speaking to the Athens-Macedonian News Agency (ANA-MPA), Paris Asanakis, legal adviser to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and counsel for the two clergymen, described the judgment as “a decision of historic significance.”
Asanakis stressed that the ruling goes beyond the specific dispute and effectively challenges a decades-long administrative practice affecting the Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople.
According to him, the judgment is considered historic for two principal reasons.
“The first is that for the past 100 years, the Turkish authorities have maintained that, because the minutes of the Treaty of Lausanne stated that the Ecumenical Patriarchate would remain in Constantinople on the condition that it limit itself exclusively to its spiritual duties, this meant that priests and any member of the Patriarchate had no right to participate in community affairs,” he explained.
Asanakis emphasized that this interpretation lacked any valid legal foundation and that the ECHR’s ruling effectively rejects this long-standing practice.
The Role of the Venice Commission
Referring to an opinion issued by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, Asanakis noted that the international legal framework has increasingly evolved toward the protection of minority rights.
“Even if the Treaty of Lausanne had contained such a provision, according to the Venice Commission, subsequent international instruments to which Turkey has become a party—such as the European Convention on Human Rights—would in any case prevent the restriction of such a right,” he said.
He explained that this principle applies not only to the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to use the title ‘Ecumenical’, but also, by extension, to the right of clergy to exercise the same civic and communal rights enjoyed by lay members of the Greek Orthodox community.
The legal adviser to the Ecumenical Patriarchate emphasized that the judgment carries both symbolic and practical significance for the Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople. In particular, he noted that the ruling paves the way for clergy to be eligible for election to the governing bodies of Greek Orthodox community foundations in Istanbul in future elections.
Violation of Religious Freedom
The most significant aspect of the judgment is that, for the first time, the European Court of Human Rights explicitly recognized that Turkey did not merely violate administrative or property rights of a minority community, but directly infringed upon the right to freedom of religion.
The Court went beyond the issue of clergy participation in the governing boards of minority foundations and found that their removal solely because of their clerical status constituted interference with the very core of their religious identity and activity.
The judgment affirms that a clergyman does not lose his rights as a citizen or as a member of a community because of his priestly vocation. On the contrary, the fact that an individual serves as a religious minister cannot be used as a justification for excluding him from participation in the affairs of ecclesiastical institutions, such as minority foundations (vakifs).
Another key element of the ruling is that the ECHR directly linked religious freedom with the pluralism that characterizes a democratic society. The Court recognized that religious communities are not merely places of worship, but living institutions that have the right to organize their administration, property, and activities with the participation of their members, whether clergy or laypersons.
“Pluralism is built on the genuine recognition of and respect for cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, and the harmonious interaction of individuals and groups with different identities is essential for social cohesion,” the Court stated. It further emphasized that “associations established, in particular, for preserving cultural or spiritual heritage, promoting social or economic objectives, teaching a religion, or defending an ethnic or minority identity, play a fundamental role in the functioning of a democratic society.”
According to Asanakis, the judgment effectively establishes an important legal precedent, recognizing that the exclusion of clergy from the administration of church-related foundations is not merely an administrative matter but may constitute a violation of religious freedom.
“The decision opens the way for similar cases in the future to be examined primarily as matters of religious rights and freedom of religious expression,” he noted.
He also pointed out that additional cases brought by clergy members are already pending before the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of similar legal arguments, and it is expected that the Court may reach comparable conclusions in those proceedings.
Translated by: Konstantinos Menyktas
