A particularly important ruling regarding the Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul was issued on May 26, 2026, by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
This development comes at a time when the debate surrounding the possible reopening of the Theological School of Halki has returned to the international spotlight.
The case “Mavrakis and Others v. Turkey” is already considered a landmark case, as it concerns issues that touch on the very core of religious freedoms and minority rights of the Greeks of Istanbul.
At the center of the case were three clergymen of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who had been elected to the boards of Greek Orthodox institutions, but were barred by the Turkish authorities because of their status as clergy.
The ECHR ruled that this practice violates both the right to religious freedom, which is protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the right to freedom of association, which is enshrined in Article 11.
The Court challenged a decades-long practice
The decision is not limited to merely vindicating the applicants. It directly challenges an administrative practice that the Turkish authorities had been following for years.
The General Directorate of Waqfs argued that the Treaty of Lausanne did not allow clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to hold administrative positions in diaspora vakifs.
The European Court of Justice rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the prohibition was not based on any legislative or regulatory provision, nor had it been ratified by a Turkish court.
A decisive role in the case was played by the Strasbourg-based lawyer Stefanos Stavros and the legal advisor to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Paris Asanakis.
As Stefanos Stavros explains: “No such provision exists. And this was the main reason that led the ECHR to issue a judgment of violation.”
The Turkish side invoked the secular nature of the state and the Treaty of Lausanne. According to him, these arguments were not deemed sufficient by the Court.
“The Treaty of Lausanne does not address this issue. The institutions to whose governing bodies the applicants were elected are churches or schools. To prohibit a priest from serving on the parish council is, with all due respect to the opposing side, paradoxical.”
The ECHR placed particular emphasis on the importance of the participation of all members of the community in the administration of religious and charitable institutions, especially in a minority whose population has been shrinking in recent years.
Landmark ruling on religious rights
The significance of this case is underscored by the fact that this is the first time the ECHR has found a violation of religious freedom against members of the Greek Orthodox community from Turkey.
To date, most of the appeals filed in Strasbourg have primarily concerned property issues involving the Ecumenical Patriarchate, schools, and ecclesiastical institutions.
Stefanos Stavros emphasizes: “It is encouraging that, for the first time, the European Court is also addressing other rights, such as religious freedom and the right of association.”
He adds: “Much can be achieved by advocating for minority rights within a multilateral framework such as that of the Council of Europe, which has proven judicial mechanisms and specific procedures for monitoring compliance.”
Also of interest is the rejection of Turkey’s claim that two of the applicants had already been vindicated by the country’s Constitutional Court.
The ECHR ruled that the Turkish courts had examined only the issue of delays in the administration of justice and not the fundamental question of the case, namely, whether clergy have the right to be elected to the governing bodies of Greek Orthodox institutions.
Special mention is made of Father Gennadios (born Nikolaos Mavrakis), one of the main petitioners. The former director of the Great School of the Nation was ordained after his retirement, but passed away before the final decision was issued.
The Court recognized the right of his heirs to continue the proceedings.
As Stefanos Stavros notes, the fact that Nikolaos Mavrakis had served the Great School of the Nation for years before becoming a clergyman “may also point to the direct connection between this case and the broader issues facing the Greek minority in Istanbul.”
The next step for Turkey
If the decision becomes final, Turkey will be required to comply with the Court’s reasoning.
This means not only paying the compensation awarded but also taking measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
According to Stefanos Stavros: “The status of a priest cannot constitute an impediment to his election to a waqf administrative committee.”
He believes that Ankara may comply with the ruling, stating: “They already have several open fronts in Strasbourg and may not want to add another one.”
