CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 septembre 1996

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. September 1996 Manoussakis and others v. Greece - 18748/91 Judgment 26.9.1996 Article 9 Conviction of Jehovah's Witnesses for having set up and operated a place of worship without the authorisation of the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Applicants' conviction: domestic remedies exhausted.   Applicants' failure to challenge in Supreme Administrative Court implied refusal of Minister of Education and Religious Affairs to grant authorisation sought: doubt as to starting-point of period for bringing such an appeal because authorities did not remain totally silent in a way that could amount to implied refusal. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Whether there was an interference Applicants' conviction for using the premises they had rented without requisite prior authorisation was interference with exercise of their freedom to manifest their religion in worship and observance. B.   Justification of the interference 1.   "Prescribed by law" Not necessary to rule on question because interference was incompatible with Article 9 on other grounds. 2.   Legitimate aim Protection of public order. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Law no. 1363/1938 and its implementing decree allowed far‑reaching interference by political, administrative and ecclesiastical authorities with the exercise of religious freedom.   In addition to numerous formal conditions prescribed in the decree, there existed in practice possibility for Minister of Education and Religious Affairs to defer his reply indefinitely or to refuse authorisation without explanation or valid reason. Right to freedom of religion excludes any discretion on part the State to determine whether religious beliefs or means used to express such beliefs are legitimate.   Authorisation requirement under Law no. 1363/1938 and its implementing decree consistent with Article   9 only in so far as it was intended to allow Minister to verify whether formal conditions laid down in those enactments were satisfied. State had tended to use possibilities afforded by those provisions to impose rigid or indeed prohibitive conditions on practice of religious beliefs by certain non-Orthodox movements, in particular Jehovah's Witnesses. In instant case the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, in response to five requests by the applicants, informed them that he was examining their file.   To date applicants had not received express decision. Government could not rely on applicants' failure to comply with legal formality to justify their conviction - conviction could not be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: judgment constituted sufficient reparation. B.   Costs and expenses (in national courts and before Convention institutions): reimbursement. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicants for costs and expenses (unanimously).     © 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