CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560DCDD3 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s75E6A93A { width:13.33pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     505   17.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF AGGA v. GREECE No. 2   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Agga v. Greece No. 2 (application nos. 50776/99 & 52912/99). The Court held, unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that no separate issue arose under Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court also held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Mehmet Agga, a Greek national, was born in 1932 and lives in Xanthi.   In 1990 one of the two Muslim religious leaders of Thrace, the Mufti of Xanthi, died. On 15 February 1990 the local Prefect (Νομάρχης) appointed the applicant to act as a deputy (τοποτηρητής). In August 1990 the two independent Muslim Members of Parliament for Xanthi and Rodopi called for elections for the post of Mufti of Xanthi. Having received no reply, they organised elections on 17 August 1990 among those attending Friday prayers at the mosques, following which the applicant was selected as Mufti of Xanthi.   On 24 December 1990 the President of the Republic adopted a Legislative Act (πράξη νομοθετικού περιεχομένου) which changed the way Muftis were elected. Law no.   1920/1991 retroactively validated the Legislative Act. On 20 August 1991, in accordance with the new regulations, the Greek State appointed another Mufti. The applicant refused to step down.   Eight sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion”. The Court of Cassation, considering that there might be disturbances in Xanthi, decided, under Articles 136 and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the proceedings should take place in other cities. The applicant was convicted and fined.       2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the Court on 31 August 1999 and 23 November respectively. They were declared partly admissible on 20 September 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicant alleged, in particular, that his conviction for usurping the functions of a minister of a “known religion” amounted to a violation of his rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 9 The Court recalled that the applicant was convicted for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion”, in that he had issued religious messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an interference with his right under Article   9 of the Convention, “in community with others and in public ..., to manifest his religion ... in worship [and] teaching”.   Although there existed, in Xanthi, in addition to the applicant, an officially appointed Mufti, the Court recalled that there was no indication that the applicant attempted at any time to exercise the judicial and administrative functions for which the legislation on muftis and other ministers of “known religions” made provision. Futhermore, the Court did not consider that, in democratic societies, the State needed to take measures to ensure that religious communities maintained or were brought under a unified leadership.   The Court accepted that the authorities had had to intervene in order to avoid the creation of tension among the Muslims in Xanthi and between the Muslims and the Christians of the area as well as Greece and Turkey. While the Court recognised that it was possible that tension was created in situations where a religious or any other community became divided, it considered that this was one of the unavoidable consequences of pluralism. The role of the authorities in such circumstances was not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerated each other. In this connection, the Court noted that, apart from a general reference to the creation of tension, the Government did not make any allusion to disturbances among the Muslims in Xanthi that had actually been or could have been caused by the existence of two religious leaders. Moreover, the Court considered that nothing was adduced that could warrant qualifying the risk of tension between the Muslims and Christians or between Greece and Turkey as anything more than a very remote possibility.   The Court therefore considered that it had not been shown that the applicant’s conviction under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code was justified in the circumstances of the case by “a pressing social need”. As a result, the interference with the applicant’s right, in community with others and in public, to manifest his religion in worship and teaching was not “necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of public order” under Article   9 §   2. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 9   Article 10 The Court held unanimously that no separate issue arose under Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts :   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.