## Facts

- Minos Kokkinakis, a Greek national, became a Jehovah’s Witness in 1936.
- Over several decades, he was arrested and detained many times (reported as more than 60) for alleged proselytism.
- Greek law criminalized “proselytism,” describing it as attempts to intrude on another’s religious beliefs with the aim of undermining them, including through inducements, promises, material assistance, fraudulent means, or taking advantage of a person’s vulnerability (such as inexperience, trust, need, low intellect, or naïvety).
- Greek courts’ case law drew a line between permissible “purely spiritual teaching” and punishable proselytism carried out through unlawful or morally blameworthy means.
- On 2 March 1986, Mr. Kokkinakis and his wife visited a neighbor, Mrs. Kyriakaki, at her home in Sitia (Crete) and discussed their faith with her.
- Mrs. Kyriakaki’s husband, an Orthodox church cantor, contacted the police; the Kokkinakises were arrested and held overnight.
- Mr. Kokkinakis was prosecuted, convicted of proselytism, and given a suspended prison sentence and a fine; domestic appellate courts upheld the conviction.
- After exhausting domestic remedies, Mr. Kokkinakis filed an application under the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging violations of Articles 7, 9, 10, and 14.

## Issues

1. Whether the Greek proselytism offence was so unclear that convicting Mr. Kokkinakis violated Article 7 (no punishment without law).
2. Whether Mr. Kokkinakis’s conviction for proselytism interfered with his Article 9 right to manifest religion and, if so, whether that interference was justified under Article 9(2) as prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.
3. Whether the Court needed to decide separately the complaints under Articles 10 and 14 given the Article 9 claim.

## Decision

- The Court held, by 6–3, that Greece violated Article 9.
- The Court found no violation of Article 7, concluding that the proselytism provision—read together with Greek judicial interpretation—was sufficiently accessible and foreseeable.
- Having found a violation of Article 9, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the Article 10 and Article 14 complaints separately.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction (including costs and expenses) under the Convention’s remedial provision.

## Legal Principles

- Article 9 protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to manifest religion in worship, teaching, practice, and observance.
- Manifestation of religion may include efforts to convince others; without that, the freedom to change religion or belief could be ineffective in practice.
- States may restrict “improper proselytism,” such as persuasion by coercion, deception, material inducements, or exploitation of vulnerability, but not peaceful religious discussion as such.
- A criminal restriction on religious manifestation must be “prescribed by law,” pursue a legitimate aim (such as protecting the rights of others or public order), and be necessary in a democratic society.
- For Article 7 and the “prescribed by law” requirement, a criminal norm may satisfy foreseeability where domestic case law gives it sufficiently clear meaning for people to understand, to a reasonable degree, what conduct risks punishment.
- Under Article 9(2), necessity requires “relevant and sufficient” reasons and a proportionate response to a pressing social need; domestic courts must point to concrete facts showing improper means rather than relying on general statutory language.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Greece could, in principle, protect individuals from improper proselytism, but Mr. Kokkinakis’s conviction was not shown to rest on concrete evidence of coercion, deception, or exploitation; as applied to his visit and religious discussion with his neighbor, the interference was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 9, while the underlying offence—clarified by national case law—remained sufficiently foreseeable to satisfy Article 7.


Kokkinakis v. Greece, (Application no. 14307/88) 17 Eur. H.R. Rep. 397, 414 (1994)