International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Periandros J. Epitropakis
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Christian Temple in Greek Law under the Light of the Rights to Culture 
and to Freedom of Worship. A Tense Relationship or Harmonious Co-Existence?
This is a summary of the homonymous M.Sc. thesis in Canon and Ecclesiastical Law which 
I drafted, in 2013, at the School of Theology of AUTh, under the supervision of Asst. Prof. Dr. 
Nikolaos Maghioros.
In Greek Law, the matter of setting the boundaries between the jurisdiction of State and Church 
in the protection of worship’s buildings with cultural value is of great interest. When, according to 
the definition of the Greek Archaeological Law (ArchL), a Christian temple is considered a cultural 
monument, then a conflict can arise between the individual rights that govern its double nature. 
This communication is a theoretical approach of the synchronisation within the constitution of the 
right to free religious practice and the right to culture. This issue is being resolved with the use of the 
Principle of Proportionality, which is introduced in the Greek Constitution 1975/1986/2001/2008 
by the article 25, § 1, sect. d.
The above mentioned rights are being protected at international, European Union and 
national levels. In Greece, the L. 3028/2002 “For the protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage 
in general” is the main statute for this protection. Some protection regulations are also included in 
the legislative and regulatory sources of the Church of Greece (Constitutional Map, Regulations and 
Circulars of the Holy Synod).
To the extent that the Christian temple, constitutes also a monument, it belongs to a particular 
category of religious cultural assets (res religiosae) with a religious practice function, as it brings 
together two values in one notion of undivided unity (rex mixtae). This union of cultural/artistic value 
with their religious/holy nature is the cause of the conflict of interests which can often be noticed.
Religious freedom presupposes the conservation and the promotion of the religious building’s 
ritual function, while the State is protecting its historical, scientific and artistic value for the 
promotion of the public interest.
Although its purpose as a place of religious practice (deputatio ad cultum) is, in terms of 
public usage, of a narrower scope than its cultural purpose (dicatio ad patriam), there is, certainly, in 
administrative action an obligation for a conciliatory interconnection of both. Besides, the dynamic-
functional rather than static-exhibitional protection of religious immovable monuments which 
preserve or might re-acquire their ritual function, constitutes a practical application of a teleological 
interpretation of the new ArchL’s fundamental principles, which stem from the Constitution and 
the International Conventions validated by Greece. Therefore, the non-respect or exclusion by the 
State, without sufficient grounds, of a monument’s ritual use is unconstitutional.
The constitutionally vested Principle of Proportionality is the most appropriate methodological 
tool for resolving this conflict. The common legislator is then called to specify this abstract legal 

---

717
notion that belongs to the Constitution. However, the use of criteria coming from other scientific 
fields creates once more abstract notions, which the Administration and the Judge are in concreto 
called upon to further specify taking into account the latest scientific data. The temple of Saint 
George (Rotunda) at Thessaloniki, is, e.g., a “cultural asset of religious character with a primarily 
monumental-historical and secondarily ritual function” whose further or different usage depends 
upon the Archaeological Service’s approval.