CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 janvier 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3 February 1999 Serif v. Greece (dec.) - 38178/97 Decision 26.1.1999 Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Alleged interference by the State in the appointment of a Muslim religious leader: admissible   The State appointed T. to a vacant post of mufti (Muslim religious leader). Two Muslim members of parliament requested that the State, in accordance with the legislation in force, organise elections to fill, among others, the post held by T. In the absence of any reply, they decided to organise their own elections in the mosques, one Friday at the end of prayers. In the meantime, the President of the Republic passed a law amending the procedure for the appointment of muftis, who henceforth were to be appointed by presidential decree. On Friday 28 December 1990, the applicant was elected mufti by the worshippers present in the mosques and, together with other Muslims, he initiated proceedings challenging the lawfulness of T.’s appointment. These proceedings are still pending. One month later, a law was passed validating retroactively the new law on the appointment of muftis. In 1991, the prosecuting authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for usurping the functions of minister of a recognised religion and for wearing the vestments of that office without having the right to do so. Following a trial in which many witnesses were heard, the applicant was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. His conviction was confirmed on appeal and his sentence set at 6 months’ imprisonment, convertible into a fine. His appeal on points of law was dismissed. The applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings, relying on Article 9, in that he was convicted despite the fact that Muslims have the right to elect their mufti, and on Article 10, as he maintains that his conviction was the result of statements he was alleged to have made. Admissible under Articles 9 and 10.     © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes