"Larissis": Another European Religious Liberty Case Decided Against Greece

Torino (Italy) February 24, 1998. On February 24, 1998 in the Larissis case the European Court of Human Rights found again against Greece in a religious liberty case, this time involving the proselytising of both Greek Air Force military personnel and civilians by members of a Pentecostal group simply called "Pentecostal Church" currently serving in the same Greek Air Force. The Court decided that, while it may be reasonable to prevent Air Force and other military officers from proselytising their subordinates, proselytising of civilians should not be prevented or limited. "The message is clear -- commented Dr. Massimo Introvigne, managing director of CESNUR -- it is now the fourth time Greece has lost a major religious liberty case before the European Court of Human Rights, after the Kokkinakis (1993) and Manoussakis (1996) cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Canea (1997) case involving the Roman Catholic Church. We still think it is great time Greece recognizes that it is now part of the European Union and surrenders its old laws and discriminations against minority religions". The full text of the decision follows.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CASE OF LARISSIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

(140/1996/759/958-960)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

24 February 1998

[Notes -- indicated with fn -- are at the end of the text]  

The present judgment is subject to editorial revision before its

reproduction in final form in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998. These

reports are obtainable from the publisher Carl Heymanns Verlag KG

(Luxemburger Straße 449, D-50939 Köln), who will also arrange for their

distribution in association with the agents for certain countries as listed

overleaf.

List of Agents

Belgium: Etablissements Emile Bruylant (rue de la Régence 67, B-1000

Bruxelles)

Luxembourg: Librairie Promoculture (14, rue Duchscher (place de Paris), B.P.

1142, L-1011 Luxembourg-Gare)

The Netherlands: B.V. Juridische Boekhandel & Antiquariaat A. Jongbloed &

Zoon (Noordeinde 39, NL-2514 GC 's-Gravenhage)

SUMMARY (fn 1)

Judgment delivered by a Chamber

Greece - conviction of air-force officers for proselytism (section 4 of Law

no. 1363/1938)

I. ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION

Position in Greek law had not become any less clear since Court's decision

in Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment that requirements of certainty and

foreseeability under Article 7 were satisfied by definition of offence of

proselytism.

Conclusion: no violation (eight votes to one).

II. ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION

A. Interference

Not disputed that prosecution, conviction and punishment of applicants

interfered with exercise of Article 9 rights.

B. "Prescribed by law"

Measures were "prescribed by law", for same reason Article 7 not violated.

C. Legitimate aim

Protecting rights and freedoms of others.

D. "Necessary in a democratic society"

1. General principles

Principles set out in Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment restated.

2. Proselytising of airmen

Convention applies in principle to armed forces - military hierarchical

structures may make it difficult for subordinate to withdraw from

conversation initiated by superior, causing risk of harassment - States may

therefore be justified in taking special measures to protect rights of

subordinate members.

Evidence that three subordinate airmen felt under pressure to take part in

religious conversations with applicants, who were superior in rank -

measures taken not particularly severe - not disproportionate.

Conclusion: no violation re: measures taken following proselytising of

airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis (eight votes to one); no violation re:

measures taken following proselytising of airman Kafkas (seven votes to

two).

3. Proselytising of civilians

No evidence civilians subjected to improper pressure. Measures therefore

unjustified.

Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two).

III. ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION

Conclusion: no separate issue (unanimously).

IV. ARTICLES 14 AND 9 OF THE CONVENTION

No evidence law applied in discriminatory manner.

Conclusion: no violation re: proselytising of airmen (unanimously); no

separate issue re: proselytising of civilians (unanimously).

V. ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded.

Costs and expenses: sums claimed awarded in part.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (seven

votes to two).

COURT'S CASE-LAW REFERRED TO

8.6.1976, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands; 26.4.1979, Sunday Times v.

the United Kingdom (no. 1); 25.5.1993, Kokkinakis v. Greece; 25.11.1997,

Grigoriades v. Greece

In the case of Larissis and Others v. Greece[fn2] ,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43

of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court

A[fn3] , as a Chamber composed of the following judges:

Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, President,

Mr R. MACDONALD,

Mr J. DE MEYER,

Mr N. VALTICOS,

Mr R. PEKKANEN,

Mr J.M. MORENILLA,

Mr B. REPIK,

Mr P. KURIS,

Mr P. VAN DIJK,

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

Having deliberated in private on 24 September 1997 and 30 January 1998,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned

date:

PROCEDURE

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

Rights ("the Commission") on 28 October 1996, within the three-month period

laid down by Articles 32 §  1 and 47 of the Convention. It originated in

three applications (nos. 23372/94, 26377/95 and 26378/94) against the

Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission respectively by three Greek

citizens, Mr Dimitrios Larissis, Mr Savvas Mandalarides and Mr Ioannis

Sarandis, under Article 25 of the Convention, on 28 January 1994.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 and to the

declaration whereby Greece recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

Court (Article 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 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention.

2.  In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 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), and

Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 § 4(b)). On 29 October

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, Mr J.

De Meyer, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr D. Gotchev, Mr P. Kuris and Mr P. van Dijk

(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 5). Subsequently Mr B.

Repik, substitute judge, replaced Mr Gotchev, who was unable to take part in

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

4.  Through the Registrar, the President 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 § 1 and 38).

Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the

Government's memorial on 27 May 1997 and that of the applicants on 28 May

1997.

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

public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 September 1997. The

Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr P. GEORGAKOPOULOS, Adviser, Legal Council of State, Agent,

Mrs K. GRIGORIOU, Representative, Legal Council of State, Counsel,

(b) for the Commission

Mr D. SVÁBY, Delegate,

(c) for the applicants

Dr J.W. MONTGOMERY, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel,

Mr A. DOS SANTOS, Adviser.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Sváby, Dr Montgomery and Mrs Grigoriou.

6.  Subsequently, Mr Gölcüklü replaced Mr Ryssdal, who was unable to take

part in the further consideration of the case, as President of the Chamber,

and Mr J.M. Morenilla, substitute judge, became a full member of the

Chamber.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

7.  The first applicant, Mr Dimitrios Larissis, was born in 1949 and lives

in Tanagra Viotias. The second applicant, Mr Savvas Mandalarides, was born

in 1948 and lives at Agria Volou. The third applicant, Mr Ioannis Sarandis,

was born in 1951 and lives in Kamatero Attikis.

At the time of the events in question, the three applicants were officers in

the same unit of the Greek air-force. They were all followers of the

Pentecostal Church, a Protestant Christian denomination which adheres to the

principle that it is the duty of all believers to engage in evangelism.

A. The alleged acts of proselytism

1. The alleged proselytising of airman Georgios Antoniadis by the first and

second applicants

8.  In the evidence he gave for the purposes of the prosecution against the

applicants (see paragraph 13 below), airman Antoniadis said that he was

transferred to the applicants' unit in 1986, two months after joining the

Air Force, and was placed under the command of the second applicant in the

teletyping service. On approximately seven occasions the first and second

applicants engaged him in religious discussions, reading aloud extracts from

the Bible and encouraging him to accept the beliefs of the Pentecostal

Church. The second applicant told him that some members of the sect were

able to speak in foreign languages with the assistance of divine power.

Whenever airman Antoniadis returned from leave, the second applicant asked

him if he had visited the Pentecostal Church. The former testified that he

felt obliged to take part in these discussions because the applicants were

his superior officers.

2. The alleged proselytising of airman Athanassios Kokkalis by the first and

third applicants

9.  In his statement before the Athens Permanent Air-Force Court (see

paragraph 13 below), airman Kokkalis testified that he served in the

applicants' unit between spring 1987 and October 1988, although he was not

under the direct command of any of them. During that time the first

applicant engaged him in theological discussions on approximately

30 occasions, and the third applicant on approximately 50 occasions,

initially concealing the fact that they were not Orthodox Christians but

subsequently criticising some of the tenets of that faith and urging airman

Kokkalis to accept their beliefs. The third applicant repeatedly asked him

to visit the Pentecostal Church in Larissa while he was on leave, telling

him that miracles took place there including the acquisition by believers of

the ability to speak in foreign languages, and gave him the Pentecostal

newspaper Christianismos to read. The applicants were very good officers and

were always polite to him, but their approaches bothered him nonetheless.

3. The alleged proselytising of airman Nikolaos Kafkas by the first and

third applicants

10.  Airman Nikolaos Kafkas was unable to give evidence at the first

instance hearing because his wife was ill, but he told the Appeal Court (see

paragraph 21 below) that he had served in the same unit as the applicants,

under the command of the third applicant, between winter 1988 and August

1989. The applicants did not put any pressure on him to become a member of

the Pentecostal Church. He himself approached the third applicant and asked

why he was so peaceful, to which the latter replied that this was the result

of reading the Gospel. When, at the suggestion of the first and third

applicants, he started to read the Bible, he noticed a number of points of

divergence between it and the teachings of the Orthodox Church. He did not

have any discussions with the applicants concerning the Orthodox and

Pentecostal Churches, although he did seek their advice whenever he had any

questions concerning the Bible and always found their replies convincing.

They never gave him any Pentecostal literature or told him to go to the

Pentecostal Church. The third applicant never authorised his absence for

purposes related to the Pentecostal Church, which he had visited for the

first time in September 1989, after he had been discharged from the armed

forces.

Airman Kafkas's father, Mr Alexandros Kafkas, told the first instance court

that his son had been converted from the Orthodox to the Pentecostal Church

while serving in the air-force under the orders of the third applicant.

According to his father, shortly after he joined the unit his behaviour

changed. He stopped seeing his friends, spent long periods of time in his

room studying the Bible and listening to taped sermons and brought back from

the barracks his television and radio sets and the books from which he used

to study for university entrance examinations. He told his father that he

had met two officers who were real Christians, unlike his father. When his

parents followed him on one of his visits to the Pentecostal Church, he left

home and went to live in Athens. He returned after 20 days, when he

reconverted to the Orthodox Church, explaining to his father that the first

and third applicants had converted him to the Pentecostal Church, taking

advantage of their rank to exert pressure on him and using special skills of

persuasion. They had told him that he would be given leave of absence if he

promised to visit their church. When Alexandros Kafkas left to go on a trip,

Nikolaos reconverted to the Pentecostal Church. His father concluded that

his son had no will of his own and always did as he was told by other

members of the Pentecostal Church.

4. The alleged proselytising of the Baïramis family and their neighbours by

the second applicant

11.  According to the statement of Captain Ilias Baïramis, his

brother-in-law, Mr Charalampos Apostolidis, a member of the Pentecostal

Church, began one day to rage at his wife, telling her that he saw Satan in

her. The second applicant was summoned, and as soon as he arrived

Mr Apostolidis became calmer. The second applicant then preached a sermon to

the members of the Baïramis family and some neighbours who had come to see

what was going on, in the course of which he urged them all to convert to

the Pentecostal religion.

5. The alleged proselytising of Mrs Anastassia Zounara by the second and

third applicants

12.  In a statement prepared for the purposes of an administrative inquiry

against the applicants, Mrs Anastassia Zounara explained that her husband

had joined the Pentecostal Church, which led to the breakdown of her family

life with him. In an attempt to understand her husband's behaviour,

Mrs Zounara visited the Pentecostal Church and the applicants' homes on

several occasions over a period of about five months. During this time the

applicants, particularly the second and third applicants, used to visit her

and urge her to join their Church. They told her that they had received

signs from God and could predict the future, and that Mrs Zounara and her

children were possessed by the devil. Eventually she developed psychological

problems and severed all links with the applicants and the Pentecostal

Church.

B. The trial at first instance

13.  On 18 May 1992, the applicants appeared before the Permanent Air-Force

Court (Diarkes Stratodikio Aeroporias) in Athens, composed of one officer

with legal training and four other officers. They were tried for various

offences of proselytism, under section 4 of Law No. 1363/38 as amended

(henceforth, "section 4": see paragraph 27 below).

14.  In a decision delivered on the day of the hearing (no. 209/92), the

court rejected the defence's argument that the law against proselytism was

unconstitutional, finding that no issue could arise under the principle

nullum crimen sine lege certa because of the non-exhaustive enumeration in

the statute of the means by which an intrusion on another person's religious

beliefs could be brought about. It found all three applicants guilty of

proselytism, holding in particular as follows.

1. The first applicant

15.  In respect of the first applicant, the court observed:

"The accused, while he was a military officer ... serving in

Unit X, committed the offence of proselytism in the military camp

of this unit between November 1986 and December 1987 by engaging

in several acts which ?gave rise to a single, albeit continuing,

breach of the relevant criminal provision. He acted with the aim

of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman

Georgios Antoniadis, an Orthodox Christian who served in the same

unit. Abusing the trust placed in him by airman Antoniadis, who

was his hierarchical subordinate, the accused tried on

approximately 20 occasions to persuade airman Antoniadis to become

a member of the sect of the Pentecostal Church by engaging in

discussions on theology with him in the course of which the

accused contested the correctness of the teachings of the

University department of theology concerning God and the Orthodox

dogma. He also encouraged airman Antoniadis to read the Bible in

the light of the accused's own beliefs as a member of the

Pentecostal Church, questioned the holy traditions and recommended

that he visit the church of the Pentecostal sect in Athens.

Acting in the same capacity, the accused committed the offence of

proselytism between May 1987 and February 1988 by engaging in

several acts which ?gave rise to a single, albeit continuing,

breach of the relevant criminal provision. He acted with the aim

of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman

Athanassios Kokkalis, an Orthodox Christian who served in the same

unit. On approximately 30 occasions the accused tried to persuade

airman Kokkalis to become a member of the sect of the Church of

Pentecost by engaging, persistently and importunately, in

discussions with him about the correctness of his beliefs as a

member of the sect of the Pentecostal Church, questioning the

holiness of the Christian Orthodox Church and inviting airman

Kokkalis to listen to taped recordings on the beliefs of the

Pentecostal sect. The accused took advantage of the trust inherent

in the relationship between a subordinate and a superior and of

airman Kokkalis's naivety, inexperience and youth, telling him

that in his church some people started speaking foreign languages

under the effect of the Holy Power.

Acting in the same capacity, the accused committed the offence of

proselytism between spring 1989 and 18 August 1989, in the place

mentioned above, by ?acting with the aim of intruding on and

changing the religious beliefs of airman Nikolaos Kafkas, who

served under his orders in the same unit. Taking advantage of the

trust inherent in the relationship between a subordinate and a

superior, and of the young man's naivety and inexperience, the

accused tried to persuade airman Kafkas to become a member of the

sect of the Church of Pentecost by continually, persistently and

importunately expounding on his beliefs concerning the sect of the

Pentecostal Church, reading and explaining the Bible in the light

of his beliefs and providing him with copies of a tract entitled

'Christianismos'. The accused succeeded in converting airman

Kafkas by taking advantage of the latter's inexperience in

theological matters and the influence he had on him due to his

position and rank."

The court also found the first applicant guilty of proselytising another

airman, Stefanos Voikos.

16.  It sentenced him to five months' imprisonment for proselytising airman

Antoniadis, five months' imprisonment for proselytising airman Kokkalis,

five months' imprisonment for proselytising airman Voikos and seven months'

imprisonment for proselytising airman Kafkas. Overall, however, because some

of these periods were to run concurrently, the first applicant was ordered

to spend thirteen months in prison. The court ordered that these penalties

be converted to fines and not enforced provided the applicant did not commit

new offences in the following three years.

2. The second applicant

17.  In respect of the second applicant, the court held as follows:

"The accused, while he was a military officer ... serving in

Unit X, committed the offence of proselytism in the military camp

of this unit between November 1986 and December 1987 by engaging

in several acts which ?gave rise to a single, albeit continuing,

breach of the relevant criminal provision. He took advantage of

the authority exercisable by him due to the difference in rank

over airman Georgiades Antoniadis, who served in the same unit. On

approximately seven occasions, on dates which have not been

specified, the accused tried to intrude on and change the

religious beliefs of airman Antoniadis by means of skilful

discussions with him concerning religion. The accused urged airman

Antoniadis, because of his youth, to study nothing but the Gospel,

where he told him he would find the truth, which differed from the

Orthodox dogma. He also tried, by means of skilful interpretation

of extracts from the Holy Gospel in accordance with the beliefs of

the sect of the Pentecost, to convince him that the Orthodox faith

was not correct and that he should adopt the beliefs of the

accused, urging him at the same time in a pressing manner to visit

during his leave the church of the Pentecostal sect in Athens.

The accused also committed the offence of proselytism in Volos in

1988 by ?taking advantage of the inexperience and intellectual

weakness of Mrs Anastassia Zounara. He tried on several occasions,

on dates which have not been specified, to intrude on and change

her religious beliefs by engaging in a skilful analysis of the

beliefs of the sect of the Pentecost and their difference from

those of the Orthodox faith. Elaborating on the correctness of the

former, he tried persistently to convince

her that the followers of the Pentecostal Church bore marks given

to them by God, that they could prophesy the future, that she and

her children were possessed by the devil who was fighting to keep

control over her, that she worshipped idols and demons and that

the Pentecostal church held the truth. He also urged her in a

pressing manner to be baptised and become a member of the

Pentecostal Church.

The accused also committed the offence of proselytism in Volos on

a date which has not been specified towards the beginning of June

1989. Having been summoned by Captain Ilias Baïramis, the accused

went to the house of Mr Apostolos Baïramis, Captain Baïramis's

brother, where Mr Charalampos Apostolidis, the brother-in-law of

the Baïramis brothers and a follower of the sect of the

Pentecostal Church, was in a delirious state under the influence

of his religious beliefs. He was foaming at the mouth, invoking

Christ's name and saying 'Thank you Christ, because I have known

the truth, I see the devil in my wife's and children's faces'. The

mere fact of the accused's presence calmed Mr Apostolidis, and the

former skilfully took advantage of this by attempting to intrude

upon and change the religious beliefs of Apostolos Baïramis and

Marigoula, Sotirios and Evangelis Baïrami, who were present during

the incident and had been impressed by it, and of a number of

neighbours who gathered afterwards. He preached to them,

elaborating on the beliefs of the sect of the Pentecostal Church

and telling them that these, and not those of the Orthodox Church,

were correct and that in 1992 the world would come to an end and

the church would be 'captured'. He urged them persistently and

importunately to believe in the true Christ and told them that, by

virtue of being Christian Orthodox, they had taken sides with the

devil."

18.  The second applicant was sentenced to five months' imprisonment for

proselytising airman Antoniadis, five months' imprisonment for proselytising

Mrs Zounara, and eight months' imprisonment for proselytising the Baïramis

family and their neighbours, although he was only to serve twelve months

overall. The court ordered that these penalties be converted to fines and

not enforced provided the applicant did not commit new offences in the

following three years.

3. The third applicant

19.  In respect of the third applicant, the court held as follows:

"The accused, while he was a military officer ... serving in

Unit X, committed the offence of proselytism in the military camp

of this unit between May 1987 and February 1988 by engaging in

several acts which ?gave rise to a single, albeit continuing,

breach of the relevant criminal provision. He acted with the aim

of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman

Athanassios Kokkalis, an Orthodox Christian who served in the same

unit. Taking advantage of the trust inherent in the relationship

between a subordinate and a superior, the accused tried more than

50 times to convince airman Kokkalis that the teachings of the

Orthodox faith were not correct on a number of issues, such as the

virginity of the Holy Mother, the ranks of the priests and the

power of the Holy Spirit. He engaged with airman Kokkalis in

persistent and importunate discussions regarding the teachings of

the sect of the Pentecostal Church, of which the accused was a

follower, telling him that the teachings of the sect, rather than

those of the Orthodox Church, were correct. He urged him to visit

a place in Larissa where the followers of the Pentecostal Church

used to gather and to become a member of the sect and he gave him

a free copy of a periodical published by the followers of the

Pentecostal Church entitled 'Christianimos'. In the course of

these encounters the accused intentionally failed to reveal to

airman Kokkalis that he was a member of the Pentecostal sect.

Acting in the same capacity, the accused committed the offence of

proselytism in the same place for a period of four to five months

in 1988, ?acting with the aim of intruding on and changing the

religious beliefs of Mrs Anastassia Zounara, an Orthodox

Christian. He skilfully took advantage of her inexperience in

religious matters and her intellectual weakness, resulting from

her low level of education, and tried importunately to persuade

her to be baptised and become a member of the sect of the

Pentecostal Church. He told her constantly that he bore signs

given to him by God, that he could foresee the future and that she

and her children were possessed. His intention was to undermine

her faith in Orthodoxy and convert her to the sect of the

Pentecostal Church.

Acting in the same capacity, the accused committed the offence of

proselytism in the same place between spring 1989 and 18 August

1989, ?acting with the aim of intruding on and changing the

religious beliefs of airman Nikolaos Kafkas, an Orthodox Christian

who served in the same unit. Taking advantage of the trust

inherent in the relationship between a subordinate and a superior

and of airman Kafkas's naivety and inexperience, the accused tried

to persuade him to adhere to the sect of the Pentecostal Church.

He engaged in continual, persistent and importunate analysis of

his beliefs regarding the sect of the Pentecostal Church,

continually reading the Gospel which he interpreted in accordance

with his beliefs. He gave airman Kafkas publications of his sect

and took him to his place of worship. In this way, he succeeded in

converting airman Kafkas, taking advantage of his inexperience in

religious matters and the influence he had on him because of his

position and rank."

The court also found that the third applicant had engaged in the

proselytising of a warrant officer, Adjutant Theophilos Tsikas.

20.  He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for proselytising airman

Kokkalis, five months' imprisonment for proselytising Mrs Zounara, five

months' imprisonment for proselytising Adjutant Tsikas and seven months'

imprisonment for proselytising airman Kafkas. He was to serve fourteen

months overall. The court ordered that these penalties be converted to fines

and not enforced provided the applicant did not commit new offences in the

following three years.

C. The appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court

21.  The applicants appealed immediately to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court

(Anatheoritiko Dikastirio), a court composed of five military judges. Their

appeal was heard on 7 October 1992.

22.  In a judgment pronounced immediately after the hearing (no. 390/1992),

the Appeal Court rejected the defence's argument to the effect that the

accused had merely exercised a constitutional right and upheld most of their

convictions, using the same reasoning as the first instance court. It did,

however, reverse the conviction of the first applicant for proselytising

airman Voikos and that of the third applicant for proselytising Adjutant

Tsikas (see paragraphs 15 and 19 above).

23.  The Appeal Court maintained the penalties imposed by the first instance

court on the first and third applicants in respect of the convictions it had

upheld. However, because of the quashing of the two convictions, their

overall sentences were reduced to eleven and twelve months respectively.

It reduced the second applicant's sentence to four months' imprisonment for

proselytising airman Antoniadis, four months for proselytising Mrs Zounara,

and six months for proselytising the Baïramis family and neighbours. His

overall sentence was reduced to ten months' imprisonment.

24.  As none of the overall sentences imposed involved more than one year's

imprisonment, they were automatically converted by the court into pecuniary

penalties of 1,000 drachmas per day. The court ordered that the penalties

should not be enforced provided that the applicants did not commit new

criminal offences in the following three years.

D. The appeal to the Court of Cassation

25.  The applicants appealed in cassation.

In a judgment delivered on 30 July 1993 (no. 1266/1993), the Court of

Cassation (Arios Pagos) found as follows:

"It follows from section 4 §§ 1 and 2 of Law No. 1363/38 [see

paragraph 27 below] that in order for the crime of proselytism ?

to be established, there must be a direct or indirect attempt to

intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different

religious persuasion with the aim of undermining those beliefs,

provided that the attempt is made using the means enumerated in a

non-exhaustive fashion in the above-mentioned Article, namely by

any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral

support or material assistance, or by fraudulent means or by

taking advantage of the other person's inexperience, trust, need,

low intelligence or naïvety.

The above-mentioned provisions of this section ?are not contrary

to [the provisions of the Greek Constitution guaranteeing the

principle nullum crimen sine lege certa]; moreover, they are

perfectly consistent with Article 13 of the Constitution [see

paragraph 26 below], which provides that all known religions are

free since, under Article 13, proselytism is prohibited ?. The

argument to the contrary finds no support in the fact that under

[the previous Constitutions] the prohibition of proselytism was

designed to protect the then (and still) dominant religion,

whereas under the present Constitution that prohibition is

associated with freedom of conscience in religious matters

relating to all known religions. This reasoning is undeniably

consistent with both the letter and the spirit [of section 4],

pursuant to which protection from proselytism employing the

unlawful means set out therein is provided for the religious

convictions of all persons of different persuasions, ie. All those

belonging to a religion or dogma other than that of the author of

the proselytism, and not exclusively those professing the

principles of the Orthodox Church.

Furthermore, freedom of conscience in religious matters and of

thought, protected as a human right by the present Constitution

and by Articles 18 and 19 of the United Nations' Universal

Declaration and Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on

Human Rights, is not undermined by the above-mentioned criminal

provision, since it does not sanction the holding of religious

beliefs, which is completely free, but only any attempt to intrude

on another person's religious beliefs with the aim of changing

them. Such attempts are quite incompatible with religious freedom,

which creates an obligation to respect the religious convictions

of all those who hold different beliefs."

The court therefore rejected the applicants' appeal.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

A. The right to religious freedom under the Greek Constitution

26.  Article 13 of the Greek Constitution provides, as relevant:

"1. Freedom of conscience in religious matters is inviolable. The

enjoyment of personal and political rights shall not depend on an

individual's religious beliefs.

2. There shall be freedom to practise any known religion;

individuals shall be free to perform their rites of worship

without hindrance and under the protection of the law. The

performance of rites of worship must not prejudice public order or

public morals. Proselytism is prohibited."

B. The law on proselytism

27.  Section 4 of Law No. 1363/38, as amended by Law No. 1672/39, provides

as follows:

"1. Anyone engaging in proselytism shall be liable to imprisonment

and a fine of between 1,000 and 50,000 drachmas; he shall,

moreover, be subject to police supervision for a period of between

six months and one year to be fixed by the court when convicting

the offender.

2. By 'proselytism' is meant, in particular, any direct or

indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person

of a different religious persuasion (eterodoxos), with the aim of

undermining those beliefs, either by any kind of inducement or

promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance,

or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of the other

person's inexperience, trust, need, low intellect or naïvety.

3. The commission of such an offence in a school or other

educational establishment or philanthropic institution shall

constitute a particularly aggravating circumstance."

There is a considerable body of case-law interpreting and applying this

section: see the Court's Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993,

Series A no. 260-A, pp. 13-15, §§ 17-21.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

28.  In their applications lodged with the Commission on 28 January 1994

(nos. 26377/94, 26378/94 and 23372/94), Mr Larissis, Mr Mandalarides and Mr

Sarandis claimed that Article 4 of Law No. 1363/38 was too broad and vague

to be compatible with the requirements of legal certainty under

Articles 7, 9 § 2 and 10 § 2 of the Convention. In addition, they complained

that their convictions for proselytism amounted to violations of their

rights to freedom of religion and expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the

Convention, and were discriminatory, contrary to Article 14 taken in

conjunction with Article 9.

29.  On 27 November 1995, the Commission ordered the joinder of the three

applications under Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure and declared them

admissible.

30.  In its report of 12 September 1996 (Article 31), the Commission

expressed the opinion that there had been violations of Article 9 of the

Convention insofar as the second applicant was convicted of proselytising

the Baïramis family and their neighbours (unanimously) and insofar as the

second and third applicants had been convicted of proselytising Mrs Zounara

(24 votes to 5). However, it found no violation of Article 9 insofar as the

first and second applicants were convicted of proselytising airman

Antoniadis and the first and third applicants were convicted of

proselytising airman Kokkalis (28 votes to 1), and insofar as the first and

third applicants were convicted of proselytising airman Kafkas (23 votes

to 6).

It further concluded that there had been no violation of Article 7 of the

Convention (28 votes to 1) and that no separate issue arose under Article 10

of the Convention (unanimously) nor under Article 9 in conjunction with

Article 14 insofar as the second applicant was convicted of proselytising

the Baïramis family and neighbours and the second and third applicants were

convicted of proselytising Mrs Zounara (unanimously). Finally, it concluded

that there had been no violation of Articles 9 and 14 taken together insofar

as the first and second applicants were convicted of proselytising airman

Antoniadis and the first and third applicants were convicted of

proselytising airmen Kokkalis and Kafkas (unanimously).

The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the three separate opinions

contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment.[fn4]

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

31.  In their memorial and at the hearing before the Court, the Government

maintained that no violation of the Convention had arisen in the applicants'

case.

The applicants, however, asked the Court to find violations of Articles 7,

9, 10 and 14 and to award them just satisfaction under Article 50.

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION

32.  The applicants contended that the law against proselytism failed to

comply with Article 7 of the Convention, which provides:

"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account

of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence

under national or international law at the time when it was

committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one

that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was

committed.

2. This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of

any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was

committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law

recognised by civilised nations."

They argued that the Greek law violated the principle enshrined in Article 7

that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen,

nulla poena sine lege), since it was impossible to predict whether certain

types of behaviour would lead to a prosecution for proselytism. They

contended that this deficiency in the law was evident both from the text of

section 4 § 2 (see paragraph 27 above) and the jurisprudence which had

arisen from it.

For example, the use of the words "in particular" implied that the

subsequent definition was only one form of proselytism punishable under the

statute, and other expressions employed, such as "direct or indirect" and

"any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or

material assistance" were so broad and vague as to embrace almost any form

of practical evangelism. The case-law which had grown out of section 4 (see

the examples set out in the Court's Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May

1993, Series A No. 260-A, p. 13, § 18), showed that no-one in Greece could

possibly determine in advance whether or not his religious actions would

constitute the offence of proselytism.

33.  The Government and the Commission, referring to the above-mentioned

Kokkinakis judgment, were both of the opinion that there had been no

violation of this provision.

34.  The Court recalls its finding in the above-mentioned Kokkinakis case

(op. cit., p. 22, § 52) that the definition of the offence of proselytism

contained in section 4, together with the settled body of national case-law

interpreting and applying it, satisfied the conditions of certainty and

foreseeability prescribed by Article 7.

It is not persuaded that the position in Greek law has become any less clear

in the period of under five years since that evaluation. Bearing in mind

that the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing

circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to

a greater or lesser extent, are vague (ibid., p. 19, § 40), it sees no

reason to reverse its previous decision.

35.  It follows that there has been no violation of Article 7 of the

Convention.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION

36.  The applicants claimed that their prosecution, conviction and

punishment for proselytism amounted to violations of Article 9 of the

Convention, which states:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or

belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and

in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in

worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject

only to 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 and freedoms of others."

The Government denied that there had been any such breach. The Commission

found that there had been no violation with regard to the measures taken

against the applicants for the proselytising of the airmen, although it

found that Article 9 had been violated insofar as the proselytising of

civilians was concerned (see paragraph 31 above).

37.  The Court must consider whether the applicants' Article 9 rights were

interfered with and, if so, whether such interference was "prescribed by

law", pursued a legitimate aim and was "necessary in a democratic society"

within the meaning of Article 9 § 2.

A. Interference

38.  The Court considers, and indeed it was not disputed by those appearing

before it, that the prosecution, conviction and punishment of the applicants

for offences of proselytism amounted to interferences with the exercise of

their rights to "freedom ?to manifest [their] religion or belief" (see the

Kokkinakis judgment cited in paragraph 32 above, p.18, § 36).

B. "Prescribed by law"

39.  The applicants, for the same reasons they had advanced in support of a

finding of violation of Article 7 (see paragraph 32 above), contended that

the measures taken against them were not "prescribed by law", as required by

Article 9 § 2.

The Government and the Commission were of the contrary opinion, again

relying on the Court's Kokkinakis judgment.

40.  The Court recalls that the expression "prescribed by law" in Article 9

§ 2 requires inter alia that the law in question must be both adequately

accessible to the individual and formulated with sufficient precision to

enable him to regulate his conduct (see, mutatis mutandis, the Sunday Times

v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A No. 30,

p. 31, § 49).

41.  It refers to its finding in the above-mentioned Kokkinakis case that

the measures taken against that applicant under section 4 were "prescribed

by law" (op. cit., pp. 19-20, §§ 40-41). As the Court has already concluded

in relation to Article 7 (see paragraphs 34-35 above), it is not satisfied

that the position in Greek law has changed subsequently or that it should

depart from its earlier assessment for any other reason.

42.  In conclusion, the measures in question were "prescribed by law" within

the meaning of Article 9 § 2.

C. Legitimate aim

43.  The Government, with whom the Commission agreed, reasoned that the

relevant action was taken against the applicants with the aim of protecting

the rights and freedoms of others and also, as far as the measures taken

following the proselytising of the airmen were concerned, with the aim of

preventing disorder in the armed forces and thus protecting public safety

and order.

The applicants made no particular submission in this connection.

44.  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and, particularly, the

terms of the national courts' decisions, the Court considers that the

impugned measures essentially pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the

rights and freedoms of others (see also the above-mentioned Kokkinakis

judgment, p. 20, § 44).

D. "Necessary in a democratic society"

45.  The Court emphasises at the outset that while religious freedom is

primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia,

freedom to "manifest [one's] religion, including the right to try to

convince one's neighbour, for example through "teaching" (ibid., p. 17,

§ 31).

Article 9 does not, however, protect every act motivated or inspired by a

religion or belief. It does not, for example, protect improper proselytism,

such as the offering of material or social advantage or the application of

improper pressure with a view to gaining new members for a Church (ibid.,

p. 21, § 48).

46.  The Court's task is to determine whether the measures taken against the

applicants were justified in principle and proportionate. In order to do

this, it must weigh the requirements of the protection of the rights and

liberties of others against the conduct of the applicants (ibid., p. 21,

§ 47). Since different factors come into the balance in relation to the

proselytising of the airmen and that of the civilians, it will assess the

two matters separately.

1. The proselytising of the airmen

47.  The Government contended that the applicants had abused the influence

they enjoyed as Air Force officers and had committed the acts in question in

a systematic and repetitive manner. The measures taken against them were

justified by the need to protect the prestige and effective operation of the

armed forces and to protect individual soldiers from ideological coercion.

48.  The applicants submitted that the practice of evangelism within a

superior/subordinate relationship could not without more be equated to an

abuse of trust. They emphasised that the airmen were adults, able to die for

their country, and that there was no evidence that the applicants had used

their positions to coerce or override the wills of their subordinates. To

interpret Article 9 so as to restrict evangelism to "equals" would be a

severe limitation of religious freedom, both within the armed forces and in

other contexts.

49.  The Commission found that the interference could be justified as

ensuring that the three airmen's religious beliefs were respected, in view

in particular of the special character of the relationship between a

superior and a subordinate in the armed forces, which rendered the

subordinate more susceptible to influence in a variety of matters including

religious beliefs.

50.  The Court observes that it is well established that the Convention

applies in principle to members of the armed forces as well as to civilians.

Nevertheless, when interpreting and applying its rules in cases such as the

present, it is necessary to bear in mind the particular characteristics of

military life and its effects on the situation of individual members of the

armed forces (see the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June

1976, Series A No. 22, p. 23, § 54, and, mutatis mutandis, the Grigoriades

v. Greece judgment of 25 November 1997 - ?, Reports of Judgments and

Decisions - 1997-?, p. ?, § 45).

51.  In this respect, the Court notes that the hierarchical structures which

are a feature of life in the armed forces may colour every aspect of the

relations between military personnel, making it difficult for a subordinate

to rebuff the approaches of an individual of superior rank or to withdraw

from a conversation initiated by him. Thus, what would in the civilian world

be seen as an innocuous exchange of ideas which the recipient is free to

accept or reject, may, within the confines of military life, be viewed as a

form of harassment or the application of undue pressure in abuse of power.

It must be emphasised that not every discussion about religion or other

sensitive matters between individuals of unequal rank will fall within this

category. Nonetheless, where the circumstances so require, States may be

justified in taking special measures to protect the rights and freedoms of

subordinate members of the armed forces.

52.  The Court refers to the evidence adduced in the domestic proceedings

(see paragraphs 8-10 above).

It notes that airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis testified that the applicants

approached them on a number of occasions in order to persuade them to

convert and to visit the Pentecostal Church. Mr Antoniadis stated that he

felt obliged to take part in the discussions because the applicants were his

superior officers, and Mr Kokkalis said that the applicants' approaches

bothered him. As the Commission found, there is no evidence that the

applicants used threats or inducements. Nonetheless, it appears that they

were persistent in their advances and that these two airmen felt themselves

constrained and subject to a certain degree of pressure owing to the

applicants' status as officers, even if this pressure was not consciously

applied.

53.  The Court notes that, contrary to the evidence given by his father at

first instance, airman Kafkas testified before the Appeal Court that the

applicants did not apply any pressure to him to become a member of the

Pentecostal Church and that he himself initiated the religious discussions

that took place between them (see paragraph 10 above). However, the Appeal

Court, having had the opportunity to assess the evidence including

Mr Kafkas's demeanour and credibility, upheld the first instance court's

decision that the first and third applicants had unlawfully taken advantage

of the influence they had over Mr Kafkas due to their position and rank (see

paragraphs 15, 18 and 22 above). The Court, considering that the domestic

courts were better placed than itself to determine the facts of the case,

and taking into account the matters referred to in paragraph 51 above, is of

the view that Mr Kafkas, like the other two airmen, must have felt to a

certain extent constrained, perhaps obliged to enter into religious

discussions with the applicants, and possibly even to convert to the

Pentecostal faith.

54.  In view of the above, the Court considers that the Greek authorities

were in principle justified in taking some measures to protect the lower

ranking airmen from improper pressure applied to them by the applicants in

their desire to promulgate their religious beliefs. It notes that the

measures taken were not particularly severe and were more preventative than

punitive in nature, since the penalties imposed were not enforceable if the

applicants did not reoffend within the following three years (see

paragraphs 16, 18, 20 and 24 above). In all the circumstances of the case,

it does not find that these measures were disproportionate.

55.  It follows that there has been no violation of Article 9 with regard to

the measures taken against the first applicant for the proselytising of

airmen Antoniadis, Kokkalis and Kafkas, those taken against the second

applicant for the proselytising of airman Antoniadis or those taken against

the third applicant for the proselytising of airmen Kokkalis and Kafkas.

2. The proselytising of the civilians

56.  The Government reminded the Court that under section 4, only improper

proselytism is punishable. They contended that the second and third

applicants had systematically exploited the family problems and

psychological distress suffered by the Baïramis family and Mrs Zounara

andhad thus applied unlawful pressure. Furthermore, the penalties imposed on

them were not particularly onerous.

57.  The Commission, with whom the applicants agreed, considered that the

circumstances leading to the conviction of the second and third applicants

for proselytising the Baïramis family and Mrs Zounara were similar to those

of the Kokkinakis case (cited in paragraph 32 above), in that the "targets"

of the proselytism were not military personnel and the domestic courts

established the defendants' guilt by reciting the words of section 4 without

adequately explaining in what way the methods employed by the accused had

been "improper". It had not been satisfactorily demonstrated that their

convictions on these counts were "necessary in a democratic society".

58.  The Court recalls that the second applicant was convicted under

section 4 for preaching on a single occasion to the Baïramis family and

their neighbours, following an incident when he had managed to calm a member

of the Baïramis family who was in a delirious state. Together with the third

applicant, he was also convicted for the proselytising of Mrs Zounara, whom

they had attempted to convert on a number of occasions during a period when

she was experiencing marital problems (see paragraphs 11, 12, 17 and 19

above).

59.  The Court finds it of decisive significance that the civilians whom the

applicants attempted to convert were not subject to pressures and

constraints of the same kind as the airmen.

With regard to the Baïramis family and their neighbours, none of the

evidence indicates that they felt obliged to listen to the applicant or that

his behaviour towards them was improper in any way.

As for Mrs Zounara, it was not disputed before the domestic courts that she

initially sought out the applicants in an attempt to understand the reasons

behind her husband's behaviour. Whilst it is clear that during the period

she was in contact with them she was in a state of distress brought on by

the breakdown of her marriage, the Court does not find it established that

her mental condition was such that she was in need of any special protection

from the evangelical activities of the applicants or that they applied

improper pressure to her, as was demonstrated by the fact that she was able

eventually to take the decision to sever all links with the Pentecostal

Church.

60.  For the above reasons, the Court does not consider that the second and

third applicants' convictions on the charges in question were justified in

the circumstances of the case.

61.  It follows that there has been a violation of Article 9 with regard to

the measures taken against the second applicant for the proselytising of the

Baïramis family and their neighbours and those taken against the second and

third applicants for the proselytising of Mrs Zounara.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION

62.  The applicants claimed that the measures taken against them had also

interfered with their rights to freedom of expression, in breach of

Article 10 of the Convention, which states, as relevant:

"1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right

shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart

information and ideas without interference by public authority ?

2.  The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and

are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or

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

for preventing the disclosure of information received in

confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

the judiciary."

63.  The Commission, with whom the Government agreed, found that no separate

issue arose under this provision.

64.  Having regard to its scrutiny of this case in the context of Article 9,

the Court also agrees that no separate issue arises in relation to

Article 10.

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH

ARTICLE 9

65.  The applicants alleged that they had been the victims of discrimination

contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, which provides:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the]

Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other

opinion, national or social origin, association with a national

minority, property, birth or other status."

They contended that the law against proselytism was applied only to members

of religious minorities in Greece, no follower of the Orthodox Church ever

having been convicted of the offence under section 4.

66.  The Government made no particular submission in relation to this

complaint.

67.  The Commission found that no separate issue arose under Articles 9

and 14 taken together in relation to the measures directed against the

second and third applicants for the proselytising of the civilians. As far

as the measures taken against the applicants for the proselytising of the

airmen were concerned, since no material was provided to substantiate the

complaint under Articles 9 and 14, it reached a finding of no violation.

68.  The Court notes that the applicants alleged in their memorial that the

Greek law against proselytism was applied in a discriminatory manner.

However, they have not produced any evidence to suggest that an officer in

the armed forces who attempted to convert his subordinates to the Orthodox

Church in a manner similar to that adopted by the applicants would have been

treated any differently. It follows that no violation of Articles 9 and 14

taken together has been established in connection with the proselytising of

the airmen.

69.  Having found a violation of Article 9 with regard to the measures taken

against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of the

Baïramis family and Mrs Zounara, the Court considers that no separate issue

arises in that connection under Articles 9 and 14 taken together.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

70.  The applicants requested just satisfaction pursuant to Article 50 of

the Convention, which states:

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal

authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is

completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising

from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party

allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of

this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if

necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Non-pecuniary damage

71.  The applicants sought 500,000 drachmas ("GRD") each to compensate them

for moral and material prejudice. This was the amount that the Court had

awarded to Mr Kokkinakis in 1993 (op. cit., p. 23, § 60).

72.  At the hearing before the Court, the Government submitted that, in the

event of the Court finding a violation, such finding would in itself

constitute sufficient just satisfaction.

73.  On the same occasion, the Commission's Delegate commented that the fact

that the domestic courts had not sought to take the Court's case-law into

account was a particular element to be taken into consideration under

Article 50.

74.  The Court observes that it has found violations of the Convention in

respect only of the measures taken against the second applicant for the

proselytising of the Baïramis family and the second and third applicants for

the proselytising of Mrs Zounara (see paragraphs 58-61 above). The first

applicant is not, therefore, entitled to any just satisfaction under

Article 50.

Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards 500,000 GRD each to

Mr Mandalarides and Mr Sarandis.

B. Costs and expenses

75.  The applicants also requested 11,800 pounds sterling ("GBP") to cover

the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings before the Commission and

Court in Strasbourg.

76.  The Government considered the amount claimed to be excessive and

submitted that the sum awarded should not exceed GRD one million.

77.  The Court again notes in this context that it does not find any

violation of the Convention in respect of the first applicant and that it

finds in favour of the second and third applicants in connection with only

one part of their complaints, namely in relation to the measures taken

against them for the proselytising of civilians.

In the light of the above, it awards to the second and third applicants part

of the costs and expenses claimed, in total GBP 6,000, together with any

value added tax which may be payable, less the amount received by way of

legal aid from the Council of Europe.

C. Default interest

78.   According to the information available to the Court, the relevant

statutory rates of interest applicable at the date of adoption of the

present judgment are 6% per annum in Greece and 8% per annum in the United

Kingdom.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Holds by eight votes to one that there has been no violation of

Article 7 of the Convention;

2. Holds by eight votes to one that there has been no violation of

Article 9 with regard to the measures taken against the first,

second and third applicants for the proselytising of airmen

Antoniadis and Kokkalis;

3. Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of

Article 9 of the Convention with regard to the measures taken

against the first and third applicants for the proselytising of

airman Kafkas;

4. Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of

Article 9 with regard to the measures taken against the second and

third applicants for the proselytising of the civilians;

5. Holds unanimously that no separate issue arises under

Article 10 of the Convention;

6. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of

Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention taken together in relation to

the measures taken against the first, second and third applicants

for the proselytising of the airmen;

7. Holds unanimously that no separate issue arises under

Articles 9 and 14 taken together in relation to the measures taken

against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of

the civilians;

8. Holds by seven votes to two

(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the second and third

applicants, within three months, in respect of compensation for

non-pecuniary damage, GRD 500,000 (five hundred thousand drachmas)

each;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay to the second and third

applicants, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses,

GBP 6,000 (six thousand pounds sterling) in total, together with

any value added tax which may be payable, less 11,149 (eleven

thousand, one hundred and forty-nine) French francs to be

converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date

of delivery of the present judgment;

(c) that simple interest shall be payable from the expiry of the

above-mentioned three months until settlement, at an annual rate

of 6% in respect of the amount awarded in drachmas and at an

annual rate of 8% in respect of the amount awarded in pounds

sterling;

9. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction.

Done in English and in French and delivered at a public hearing in the Human

Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 February 1998.

Signed: Feyyaz GÖLCÜKLÜ

President

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

In accordance with Article 51 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 53 § 2 of Rules

of Court A, the following opinions are annexed to this judgment:

(a) concurring opinion of Mr De Meyer;

(b) partly dissenting opinion of Mr Valticos joined by Mr

Morenilla;

(c) partly dissenting opinion of Mr Repik;

(d) partly dissenting opinion of Mr van Dijk.

Initialled: F.G.

Initialled: H.P.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

(Provisional translation)

The law in issue in the present case is contrary to the Convention in its

very principle, since it directly encroaches on the very essence of the

freedom everyone must have to manifest his religion.

However, in so far as it was applied to attempts to convert servicemen made

by their superior officers, those officers cannot have been victims of an

infringement of the freedom concerned since in the present case they had

abused their position and rank.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS JOINED BY JUDGE MORENILLA

(Provisional translation)

The instant case, like various others, bears strong similarities, although

attended by aggravating circumstances, to the Kokkinakis case (judgment of

25 May 1993, Series A no. 260), which gave rise to a variety of opinions

within the Court. I will not reiterate in detail the position I adopted on

that occasion, but I refer the reader to it.

As in the Kokkinakis case, I maintain that any attempt going beyond a mere

exchange of views and deliberately calculated to change an individual's

religious opinions constitutes a deliberate and, by definition, improper act

of proselytism, contrary to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" as

enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention. Such acts of proselytism may take

forms that are straightforward or devious, that may or may not be an abuse

of the proselytiser's authority and may be peaceful or - and history has

given us many bloodstained examples of this - violent. Attempts at

"brainwashing" may be made by flooding or drop by drop, but they are

nevertheless, whatever one calls them, attempts to violate individual

consciences and must be regarded as incompatible with freedom of opinion,

which is a fundamental human right.

The measures taken nationally to prohibit and, if need be, punish them

cannot therefore be regarded as amounting to breaches of the Convention.

In the instant case I concur in part of the Court's judgment and share its

opinion that there has been no violation of the Convention as regards the

punishment of the officers' attempted proselytising of soldiers who could

have been influenced in part by the officers' authority over them.

However, I consider that even in the case of these officers' attempts to

proselytise civilians, the penalties to which these gave rise were justified

since the prestige of the officers' uniform may have had an effect even on

civilians and, at all events, such deliberate acts of proselytism are

contrary to the respect for freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed in

the Convention.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE REPIK

(Provisional translation)

I regret that I am unable to agree with the majority about compliance with

Article 7 or the conclusion that the interference with the applicants'

exercise of their right to manifest their religion was "prescribed by law".

Compliance with Article 7

It is true that in the Kokkinakis v. Greece case (judgment of 25 May 1993,

Series A no. 260-A, pp. 22, §§ 52-53), the Court ruled that section 4 of Law

no. 1363/1938 on the offence of proselytism was compatible with Article 7 of

the Convention. However, the nature of the problem has changed since then.

As I understand it, the Court was saying in its judgment in that case that

the Greek law in question satisfied the requirements of Article 7 of the

Convention only with the assistance provided by the case-law of the Greek

courts, which, being published and accessible, complemented the letter of

section 4 and enabled individuals to regulate their conduct in this respect.

The law itself was one of those which, to a greater or lesser extent, were

couched in vague terms and whose interpretation and application depended on

practice (ibid., pp. 19 and 22, §§ 40 and 52).

However, albeit in connection with the necessity of the interference rather

than its legality, the Court laid down the principle that there was a need

to distinguish between Christian witness, which was the true form of

evangelism and an essential duty of every believer and every Church, on the

one hand, and improper proselytism, which was not compatible with the

respect due to others' freedom of thought, conscience and religion, on the

other. And it went on to add a proviso, namely that the criteria adopted by

the Greek legislature were reconcilable with that distinction if and in so

far as (my emphasis) they were designed only to punish improper proselytism

(ibid., p. 21, § 48). It was apparently up to the courts to draw this

distinction by means of an appropriate interpretation of the terms of the

law. In the case concerned, the Court noted that in finding Mr Kokkinakis

guilty the Greek courts had done no more than reproduce the wording of the

law, without sufficiently specifying in what way he had attempted to

convince his neighbour by improper means (ibid., p. 21, § 49).

I leave aside the question which suggests itself immediately, that is,

whether in a system of written law the principle that offences and penalties

must be defined by law is respected where the line separating what is

criminal conduct from what is merely the normal exercise of a freedom

guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention is drawn by judges rather

than by statute. Does that not put the judge in the position where he is

required not just restrictively to interpret the law, but instead himself to

define an offence which, as drafted, is so broad as to embrace conduct

which ought to remain lawful?

Although the case-law of the Greek courts, which was scrutinised by the

Court in the Kokkinakis judgment (op. cit., pp. 13-14, §§ 17-21), is not by

any means of one piece and contains contradictions, the Court's expectation

that conviction would ensue only in cases of improper proselytism could

justifiably be based on the fact that in a judgment of 1975, in which it

reversed its previous case-law, the Court of Cassation had removed the

effects of certain vague terms in the law, notably the words "in

particular". But that expectation has not been fulfilled. As the Commission

observed in paragraphs 69-70 of its report and as its Delegate pointed out

at the hearing, the Court of Cassation in the present case adopted an

approach markedly different from the Court's, failing to distinguish between

the use of proper and improper means and reverting to its previous case-law

to the effect that the means set out in the law were not exhaustively listed

and, a fact which to my mind is even more significant, emphasising the

subjective elements of the offence, namely the so-called intrusion or

attempt to intrude, directly or indirectly, on the religious beliefs of

another with the aim of undermining those beliefs. The Court, by drawing a

distinction between proper and improper means, has endeavoured to identify

some objective element which, in a given individual's conduct, would be the

only criterion capable of providing anything like a reliable indication

whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Court of Cassation, on

the other hand, has once more shifted its emphasis onto subjective elements,

which do not provide a suitable criterion for distinguishing between proper

and improper proselytism. In the instant case the Court has not taken into

account this change of position on the part of the Court of Cassation.

Is it the fault of the law or rather of its interpretation and application

by the Greek courts that the limits of its scope have again become

considerably more obscure, as Mrs Liddy rightly pointed out in her

dissenting opinion annexed to the Commission's report. The difficulty of

applying the law in such a way so as not to encroach unduly on the freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention is obvious. It is no less obvious that the

domestic courts did not succeed in making up for the deficiencies of the

law. The case-law, including the case-law of the highest Greek court, is

very inconsistent; far too frequently there are prosecutions and even

convictions for conduct about which there is nothing improper (for example,

the distribution of religious literature). It is the Strasbourg Court which

has striven, after the event, to draw certain distinctions in this area, but

those distinctions do not flow necessarily from the law, and in fact the

domestic courts still fail to discern them in it.

That being the case, a believer who tries to spread his religious beliefs

can never be certain whether his conduct is illegal or not. The law is not

sufficiently precise and its effects are therefore not sufficiently

foreseeable; it cannot guarantee legal certainty or equality of treatment,

nor can it afford protection against arbitrary measures by the authorities

responsible for applying it.

I am unable to conclude that the law in question satisfies the requirements

of Article 7 and I accordingly consider that this provision has been

breached.

Article 9

For the same reasons, I am not convinced that the interference with the

applicants' exercise of their right to manifest their religion was

"prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 9 § 2.

There is nothing in Greek legislation or the case-law of the Greek courts

pertaining to religious discussion in the armed forces. Nor do the decisions

of the domestic courts concerned draw any distinction between proselytising

of servicemen and proselytising of civilians. Once again it was the Court,

following the Commission's example, which introduced this distinction after

the event. I do not see how the applicants could have foreseen with the

requisite degree of certainty that their conduct towards the servicemen

would be illegal whereas their conduct towards other persons would not.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VAN DIJK

I felt unable to join the majority in one part of their conclusion, namely

that concerning the compatibility with Article 9 of the Convention of the

conviction of the first and third applicants for allegedly proselytising

airman Kafkas.

I agree with the general reasoning, contained in paragraph 51 of the

judgment, especially the statement that what would in the civilian world be

seen as an innocuous exchange of ideas which the recipient is free to accept

or reject, may, within the confines of military life, be viewed as a form of

harassment or the application of undue pressure in abuse of power. However,

in that same paragraph the Court points to the fact that not every

discussion about religion or other sensitive matters between individuals of

unequal rank will fall within this category.

Like Mr Schermers and the four other members of the Commission who attached

a partially dissenting opinion to the Commission's report in this case, I am

of the opinion that it should be possible to rebut the assumption of undue

influence exercised by a higher ranking over a lower ranking person in the

army. Whereas the testimonies of airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis before the

domestic courts confirmed the said assumption, airman Kafkas testified

before the Appeal Court that he made the initial contact with the third

applicant; that, later on, it was he who sought the first and third

applicants' advice; and that no pressure was ever put on him (paragraph 10

of the judgment).

The majority refer to the way in which the Appeal Court assessed this

evidence, "including Mr Kafkas's demeanour and credibility", and accept it,

"considering that the domestic courts were better placed than itself to

determine the facts of the case" (see paragraph 53 of the judgment). The

Court was competent, however, when assessing the proportionality of the

limitation, to give its view on the fact that the Appeal Court, although it

heard Mr Kafkas's own testimony, adopted the reasoning of the first instance

court which had not heard airman Kafkas as a witness but only his father. In

that same context, the majority should also have given their view as to why

airman Kafkas's "demeanour and credibility" were in issue - presumably

because he had been converted to the Pentecostal Church in the meantime -

while the same was not true for his father as a witness, although the latter

may be assumed to have been displeased by his son's conversion. At the very

least, it would seem unsatisfactory that the Appeal Court did not deem it

necessary to assess the statements of these two witnesses in relation to

each other. All in all, I find it difficult to understand why the Court

should accept, without any examination and supervision, the domestic courts'

findings with regard to the proselytising of the airmen, while takinga

critical view towards their findings concerning the proselytising of the

civilians. I am of the opinion that, in these circumstances, the Court

should not have deferred to the domestic courts on the question of the

evidence of airman Kafkas and his father and should, in the absence of any

counter-indication, have given greater weight to the testimony of the

alleged victim of the proselytism than to that of a witness whose testimony

was based upon hear-say information.

Since in the material submitted to the Court I cannot find any overriding

evidence that airman Kafkas's discussions on religion and subsequent

conversion were not prompted by his own free will, I cannot join the

majority's conclusion that there was a pressing social need to prosecute and

punish those whose guidance he sought on that road, albeit that they were

his military superiors.

Footnotes

[fn1] . This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.

[fn2] . The case is numbered 140/1996/759/958-960. The first number is the

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

year (second number). The third number indicates the case's position on the

list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and the last two

numbers indicate its position on the list of corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

[fn3] . Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry

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

concerning States not bound by that Protocol. They correspond to the Rules

that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times

subsequently.

[fn4] .  Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex will appear

only with the printed version of this judgment (in Reports of Judgments and

Decisions 1998), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the

registry.