CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 février 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE20A0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:12pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s35B93C04 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s6A6A94D7 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify } .sE3D9D93D { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s350CDD84 { width:8.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s35D46A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .sB3C35A20 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s21F14091 { width:7.18pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBE143B1A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:28.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s935D3426 { width:4.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s66CF85D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF1C3C61A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.8pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s8FE04A59 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:28.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7FB07EB { width:14.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s42C54FA3 { width:5.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA0493E75 { width:3.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s24778D2E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s88690062 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s84E0254C { width:2.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3838A079 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .s3A9FCD24 { width:4.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4307E828 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s15B4D161 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s5AE3DA4A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC7640BE9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAAD5D99A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF18AFABB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; font-size:12pt } .s64A09B87 { width:5.18pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s17F22A1 { width:8.71pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s75DEE122 { width:8.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE81368CE { width:158.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE97F4D3 { width:2.71pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3580D149 { width:15.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6C52D68E { width:225.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4921892B { width:10.04pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CD16A71 { width:92.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA296A779 { width:205.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0D91B4B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB6686A27 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8B965CAB { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s60CEFD5F { width:22.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s836E1A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s71C890AB { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:28.5pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.25pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sB820385D { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1FCFA425 { width:0.84pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ACBD94A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4556AD7D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:29.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s23D77467 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5DB1B6FE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFC353FA9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s8750BF75 { width:8.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3EB11201 { width:3.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sBDA4B1F0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:27.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s1347D82B { width:5.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s286D21C3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sD797C3D9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sA198395 { width:22.4pt; display:inline-block } .sDBE1A3A2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sF3F78251 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .sFCB87528 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s5BD3D434 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s2ACD795E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sCBB5893A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7A0D74FF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF7A8F241 { width:11.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85C4038F { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:28.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sC2354B74 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3CE056FE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s48A35B5A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sFD06749F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s10A36CCE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF7EA9B01 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s1D4A078A { width:15.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s49136680 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3EA78489 { width:2.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF2F9A4FB { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF559FC96 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2CFC05A8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sAE5BCF31 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sCDA0FB2B { width:12.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9E658AED { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF9C56EAB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6F87DEE { width:10.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s164A0207 { width:9.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s820009A6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s20663E02 { width:10.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s135FA932 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s8BB842AB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sB0336B7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA4355D48 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sAEAEF8F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7C610E5B { width:2.58pt; display:inline-block } .s809F7D1D { width:3.26pt; display:inline-block } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1B97388 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s3EB60E64 { width:233.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4A173D53 { width:45.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9EBDBB25 { width:12.24pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC2E0E68A { width:53.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF1D05512 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE04D62DC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         CASE OF LARISSIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE   (140/1996/759/958–960)                       JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG     24 February 1998     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 [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 regarding measures taken following proselytising of airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis (eight votes to one); no violation regarding 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 regarding proselytising of airmen (unanimously); no separate issue regarding 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 [2] , 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 [3] , 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. Kūris ,   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 Article   32 § 1 and Article   47 of the Convention. It originated in three applications (nos.   23372/94, 26377/94 and 26378/94) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 respectively by three Greek nationals, Mr   Dimitrios Larissis, Mr   Savvas Mandalarides and Mr   Ioannis Sarandis, 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. Kūris 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.     As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 §   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 §   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 , Senior Adviser,       State Legal Council,   Agent , Mrs   K. Grigoriou , Legal Assistant, State Legal Council,   Counsel ; (b)   for the Commission Mr   D . Š váby ,   Delegate ; (c)   for the applicants Dr   J.W. Montgomery , Barrister-at-Law,   Counsel , Mr   A. Dos Santos,   Adviser . The Court heard addresses by Mr   Šváby, 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                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. The alleged acts of proselytism 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. 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 thirty occasions, and the third applicant on approximately fifty 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. 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 Courts-Martial 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 twenty 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. 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. 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, c omposed of one officer with legal training and four other officers. They were tried for various offences of proselytism, under section   4 of Law no.   1363/1938 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 twenty 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 thirty 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 naïvety, inexperience and youth, telling him that in his Church some people started speaking foreign languages under the effect of the Holy Spirit. 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 naïvety 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 Vólos 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 Vólos 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 fifty 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 Christianismos . 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 naïvety 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.   1363/1938 [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 section, 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, nulla poena sine lege ]; 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,   i.e. 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 dismissed the applicants’ appeal. II.   Relevant domestic law 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.” The law on proselytism 27.     Section   4 of Law no.   1363/1938, as amended by Law no.   1672/1939, 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 na ï vety. 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. 23372/94, 26377/94 and 26378/94), Mr Larissis, Mr   Mandalarides and Mr Sarandis claimed that section   4 of Law   no.   1363/1938 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 in so far as the second applicant was convicted of proselytising the Baïramis family and their neighbours (unanimously) and in so far as the second and third applicants had been convicted of proselytising Mrs   Zounara (twenty-four   votes to   five). However, it found no violation of Article   9 in so far as the first and second applicants were convicted of proselytising airman Antoniadis and the first and third applicants were convicted of proselytising airman Kokkalis (twenty-eight votes to   one), and in so far as the first and third applicants were convicted of proselytising airman Kafkas (twenty-three   votes to   six). It further concluded that there h