BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";} .MsoChpDefault {font-size:11.0pt;} .MsoPapDefault {margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} /* Page Definitions */ @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=EN-GB style='text-justify-trim:punctuation'>
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1997/30.html
Cite as: [1997] ECHR 30

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


    

          In the case of Pentidis and Others v. Greece (1),

     

          The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with

    Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of

    Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the

    relevant provisions of Rules of Court A (2), as a Chamber composed of

    the following judges:

     

          Mr  R. Ryssdal, President,

          Mr  R. Macdonald,

          Mr  N. Valticos,

          Sir John Freeland,

          Mr  A.B. Baka,

          Mr  B. Repik,

          Mr  U. Lohmus,

          Mr  J. Casadevall,

          Mr  E. Levits,

     

    and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy

    Registrar,

     

          Having deliberated in private on 21 February and on 2 June 1997,

     

          Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

    last-mentioned date:

    _______________

    Notes by the Registrar

     

    1.  The case is numbered 59/1996/678/868.  The first number is the

    case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

    relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the

    case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

    creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

    to the Commission.

     

    2.  Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry

    into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only

    to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9).  They

    correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as

    amended several times subsequently.

    _______________

     

    PROCEDURE

     

    1.    The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of

    Human Rights ("the Commission") on 17 April 1996, within the

    three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of

    the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47).  It originated in an application

    (no. 23238/94) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission

    under Article 25 (art. 25) by three Greek nationals,

    Mr Zissis Pentidis, Mr Dimitrios Katharios and

    Mr Anastassios Stagopoulos, on 30 December 1993.

     

          The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

    (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Greece recognised the

    compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).  The

    object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts

    of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its

    obligations under Articles 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention

    (art. 3, art. 8, art. 9, art. 10, art. 11, art. 14) and of Article 1

    of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

     

    2.    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

    Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that

    they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer

    who would represent them (Rule 30).

     

    3.    The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr N. Valticos,

    the elected judge of Greek nationality (Article 43 of the Convention)

    (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court

    (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)).  On 27 April 1996, in the presence of the

    Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other

    seven members, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr R. Macdonald,

    Sir John Freeland, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr B. Repik, Mr U. Lohmus and

    Mr J. Casadevall (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and

    Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).  Subsequently, Mr E. Levits, substitute

    judge, replaced Mr Gölcüklü, who was unable to take part in the further

    consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

     

    4.    As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Ryssdal, acting

    through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Greek Government

    ("the Government"), the applicants' lawyer and the Delegate of the

    Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and

    38).  The Government's memorial reached the registry on

    16 December 1996 and the applicants' memorial on 18 December.

     

    5.    In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took

    place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on

    18 February 1997.  The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

     

          There appeared before the Court:

     

    (a)  for the Government

     

         Mr V. Kondolaimos, Senior Adviser,

            Legal Council of State,                Delegate of the Agent,

         Mr V. Kyriazopoulos, Adviser,

            Legal Council of State,                              Adviser;

     

    (b)  for the Commission

     

         Mr J.-C. Geus,                                         Delegate;

     

    (c)  for the applicants

     

         Mr P. Bitsaxis, of the Athens Bar,                      Counsel.

     

          The Court heard addresses by Mr Geus, Mr Bitsaxis and

    Mr Kyriazopoulos, and also their replies to its questions.

     

    6.    By a letter of 12 May 1997, which reached the registry on 20 May,

    the applicants' lawyer submitted to the Court a request that the case

    be struck out of the list.  On 22 May 1997 the Registrar received a

    letter from the Agent of the Government in which he agreed to the

    striking out of the case.  On 27 May 1997 the Delegate of the

    Commission informed the Court that he raised no objection to the

    application of Rule 49 para. 2 of Rules of Court A.

     

    AS TO THE FACTS

     

    I.    Particular circumstances of the case

     

        A.     Background

     

    7.    The applicants are all three Jehovah's Witnesses and live in

    Alexandroupolis and Komotini (western Thrace).

     

    8.    On 28 June 1990 they rented under a private agreement a room in

    a building in Alexandroupolis.  The agreement specified that the room

    would be used "for all kinds of meetings, weddings, etc., of Jehovah's

    Witnesses".

     

    9.    On 8 October 1990 forty-three residents of the town requested the

    public prosecutor's office to take measures with a view to removing the

    Jehovah's Witnesses from the district.  Following this request the

    public prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings under

    section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938 (anagastikos nomos).  The applicants

    were accused of having "established ... a place of worship for

    religious meetings and ceremonies of followers of another denomination

    and, in particular, of the Jehovah's Witnesses' denomination without

    authorisation from the recognised ecclesiastical authorities and the

    Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, such authorisation being

    required for the construction and operation of a church of any faith".

     

    10.   On 19 November 1990 the Alexandroupolis police put seals on the

    entrance door of the room rented by the applicants.

     

        B.     Proceedings in the Alexandroupolis Criminal Court sitting

               at first instance

     

    11.   On 2 July 1991 the Alexandroupolis Criminal Court sitting at

    first instance (Monomeles Plimmeliodikeio) acquitted the applicants

    (judgment no. 2092/1991).  It found, inter alia, that the room that

    they had rented "was used only for preaching and reading of the gospel,

    which are not acts of worshipping God and that consequently it was not

    a place of worship or a church within the meaning of section 1 (1) of

    Law no. 1363/1938".

     

          The court ordered the seals to be removed and they were not in

    fact put back despite the applicants' subsequent conviction

    (see paragraph 12 below).

     

        C.     Proceedings in the Alexandroupolis Criminal Court sitting

               on appeal

     

    12.   On 3 July 1991 the Alexandroupolis public prosecutor's office

    appealed.

     

          On 21 May 1992 the Alexandroupolis Criminal Court sitting on

    appeal and composed of three judges (Trimeles Plimmeliodikeio),

    sentenced each of the accused to thirty days' imprisonment convertible

    into a pecuniary penalty of 400 drachmas per day of detention, and

    fined them 6,000 drachmas each (judgment no. 511/1992).  It

    nevertheless accepted that there were mitigating circumstances in that

    there had been no base motives behind the offence (Article 84 para. 2

    of the Criminal Code).  The court declined to follow prosecuting

    counsel's submissions calling for the defendants' acquittal.  It held

    as follows:

     

          "... [the applicants] set up a place of worship for the

          Jehovah's Witnesses denomination ... without the authorisation

          of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs; in

          particular, they converted the building that they had rented into

          a place of worship and ran it as such ..., and on Mondays,

          Wednesdays and Sundays (afternoons on the first two days and

          mornings and afternoons on the third) fifty to eighty believers

          (witnesses) of the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination gathered

          there and, under the spiritual guidance of the first accused,

          Mr Dimitrios Katharios, appointed minister of the above-mentioned

          denomination for the Evros area, read, studied and interpreted

          passages from the Bible, prayed to God (prayer groups) and sung

          together psalms accompanied by an organ, without having an

          authorisation ... from the Ministry of Education and

          Religious Affairs."

     

        D.     Proceedings in the Court of Cassation

     

    13.   On 5 June 1992 the applicants appealed on points of law.  They

    argued, inter alia, that section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938 and the

    obligation to seek an authorisation to establish a place of worship

    were contrary to Article 13 of the Greek Constitution and to Article 9

    (art. 9) of the European Convention.  They also contended that the same

    provision was incompatible with the right to peaceful assembly

    guaranteed under Article 11 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the

    Convention (art. 11).

     

    14.   In a judgment (no. 1204/1993) of 7 July 1993 the

    Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal on the following grounds:

     

          "The provisions [of section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938 and of the

          royal decree of 20 May/2 June 1939 implementing that Law] are

          contrary [neither to Article 11 nor to Article 13 of the

          Constitution], for the right to freedom of worship is not

          unlimited and may be subject to control.  The exercise of this

          right is subject to certain conditions set down in the

          Constitution and at law: it must be a known religion, not a

          secret religion; there must be no prejudice to public order or

          morals; neither must there be any acts of proselytism, such acts

          being expressly prohibited in the second and third sentences of

          Article 13 para. 2 of the Constitution.  These provisions are,

          moreover, not contrary [to the Convention for the Protection of

          Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], Article 9 (art. 9) of

          which guarantees freedom of religion but Article 9 para. 2

          (art. 9-2) of which authorises such limitations as are prescribed

          by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests

          of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or

          morals, or for the protection of the rights of others.

     

          The provisions of section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938 ... and of the

          royal decree of 20 May/2 June 1939, which empower the

          Minister of Education and Religious Affairs to investigate

          whether the above-mentioned conditions are met, are contrary

          neither to the Constitution nor to Article 9 [of the Convention]

          (art. 9), which do not in any way prohibit investigations of this

          type; the purpose of such investigations is moreover merely to

          ensure that the statutory conditions necessary to grant

          authorisation are met; if these conditions are met, the Minister

          is obliged to grant the requested authorisation.

     

          ..."

     

    PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     

    15.   The applicants applied to the Commission on 30 December 1993.

    They complained of violations of Articles 3, 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3, 7,

    8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 3, art. 6-1, art. 6-2,

    art. 6-3, art. 7, art. 8, art. 9, art. 10, art. 11, art. 13, art. 14)

    and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

     

    16.   On 13 January 1995 and on 16 October 1995 the Commission declared

    the application (no. 23238/94) admissible as regards the complaints

    based on Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention (art. 3,

    art. 8, art. 9, art. 10, art. 11), Article 14 read in conjunction with

    Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (art. 14+10, art. 14+11) and

    Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).  It declared the application

    inadmissible for the rest.  In its report of 27 February 1996

    (Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion that:

     

          (a) there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention

    (art. 9) (twenty-seven votes to one);

     

          (b) no separate issue arose under Article 9 of the Convention

    taken in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+9), or under Articles 10

    and 11, taken together with Article 14 (art. 14+10, art. 14+11), or

    individually (art. 10, art. 11) (unanimously);

     

          (c) there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the

    Convention (art. 3, art. 8) (unanimously) or of Article 1 of

    Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (twenty-seven votes to one).

     

          The full text of the Commission's opinion and the

    two partly dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced

    as an annex to this judgment (1).

    _______________

    Note by the Registrar

     

    1.  For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed

    version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and

    Decisions 1997-III), but a copy of the Commission's report is

    obtainable from the registry.

    _______________

     

    AS TO THE LAW

     

    17.   At the hearing before the Court the applicants' lawyer stated

    that the applicants had lodged with the Minister of Education and

    Religious Affairs on 7 February 1997 a request for authorisation to

    open a place of worship.

     

    18.   By a letter of 12 May 1997, which reached the registry on

    20 May 1997, the applicants' lawyer submitted to the Court a request

    for the case to be struck out of the list.  It was worded as follows:

     

          "On behalf of the applicants, Mr Pentidis, Mr Katharios and

          Mr Stagopoulos, I would inform you that they agree to [their]

          case being struck out of the list, subject to the Court's

          considering such a course of action appropriate.

     

          This is now possible because on 23 April 1997 the

          Minister of Education and Religious Affairs granted the

          authorisation to open a place of worship (prayer room) for

          Jehovah's Witnesses in Alexandroupolis.

     

          This solution satisfies the applicants and justifies their

          request.  They consider that it constitutes a friendly settlement

          of the case and state that the difficulties of a general nature

          described in detail in their application will now be removed.

     

          ..."

     

          The authorisation granted by the Minister of Education and

    Religious Affairs, which was appended to that letter, was formulated

    in the following terms:

     

          "Having regard to:

     

          1. The provisions of Laws nos. 1363/1938 and 1672/1939 and of the

          royal decree of 20 May/2 June 1939;

     

          2. The request of Zissis Pentidis, also signed by four (4) other

          applicants, 'Jehovah's Witnesses', seeking the authorisation to

          open a place of worship in Alexandroupolis, at the corner of

          Chalkidonas Street and Kessanis Street,

     

                     I, the undersigned,

     

          authorise the opening of a place of worship for 'Jehovah's

          Witnesses' in Alexandroupolis at the corner of Chalkidonas Street

          and Kessanis Street, subject to the following conditions:

     

          1. Preaching and worshipping on these premises shall be conducted

          under the supervision of Zissis Pentidis;

     

          2. The plaque which must be put up at the entrance to the room

          where the place of worship is to be established shall indicate

          'Jehovah's Witnesses', as requested by the applicants.

     

          Any alteration of these conditions will require the approval of

          my department."

     

          In a letter of 21 May 1997, which reached the registry on 22 May,

    the Government agreed to the striking out of the case.

     

          The Delegate of the Commission was consulted and raised no

    objection.

     

    19.   The Court notes that the authorisation granted to the applicants

    by the national authorities constitutes a "fact of a kind to provide

    a solution of the matter" within the meaning of Rule 49 para. 2 of

    Rules of Court A.  It would however be open to it, having regard to its

    responsibilities under Article 19 of the Convention (art. 19), to

    decide to proceed with consideration of the case if a reason of

    public policy appeared to necessitate such a course (Rule 49 para. 4

    of Rules of Court A).  However, it finds no such reason.

     

          In this connection, it recalls that in the case of

    Manoussakis and Others v. Greece - whose facts are nevertheless

    somewhat different from those of the present case - it ruled on the

    application of Law no. 1363/1938 and the royal decree of

    20 May/2 June 1939 to Jehovah's Witnesses who wished to open a place

    of worship (judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and

    Decisions 1996-IV).  In the same judgment, the Court also indicated the

    nature and scope of the obligations incumbent on Greece in that

    respect.

     

          Accordingly the case should be struck out of the list.

     

    FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

     

          Decides to strike the case out of the list.

     

          Done in English and in French, and notified in writing under

    Rule 55 para. 2, second sub-paragraph, of Rules of Court A on

    9 June 1997.

     

    Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

            President

     

    Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

            Registrar

     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1997/30.html

PENTIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE - 23238/94 - Chamber Judgment [1997] ECHR 30 (09 June 1997)