Facts
-
Three Greek Air Force officers, members of a Pentecostal church, spoke about their faith and invited others to services.
-
Greek authorities prosecuted and convicted them of the criminal offence of “proselytism” under Greek law.
-
The convictions were based on two categories of conduct:
- Religious discussions and invitations directed at three lower-ranking airmen under the applicants’ authority.
- Religious approaches to several civilians, mainly wives or relatives of servicemen.
-
The applicants exhausted domestic remedies and applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging violations of:
- Article 7 (lack of foreseeability/clarity of the offence),
- Article 9 (freedom to manifest religion),
- Article 10 (freedom of expression), and
- Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 (discriminatory application).
Issues
- Whether the Greek offence of “proselytism” was sufficiently clear and foreseeable to satisfy Article 7.
- Whether convicting the applicants for proselytism violated Article 9, and whether the analysis differed for proselytism directed at military subordinates versus civilians.
- Whether the convictions raised a separate issue under Article 10 beyond the Article 9 analysis.
- Whether the proselytism law was applied in a discriminatory manner against the applicants, in violation of Article 14 taken with Article 9.
Decision
-
Article 7: No violation; the offence definition was sufficiently certain and foreseeable.
-
Article 9:
- No violation for convictions relating to proselytism directed at subordinate airmen, given the military hierarchy and evidence that subordinates felt pressure.
- Violation for convictions relating to proselytism directed at civilians, because no evidence showed improper pressure or coercion and the criminal sanctions were not justified.
-
Article 10: No separate issue; the expression interests were addressed through Article 9.
-
Article 14 taken with Article 9: No violation; the record did not show discriminatory application.
Legal Principles
- Article 7 is satisfied when a criminal offence is defined with enough certainty and foreseeability that individuals can understand, with appropriate advice if necessary, the legal consequences of their conduct.
- Article 9 protects the right to manifest religion, including attempting to convince others through teaching or discussion, subject to limits necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
- States may restrict “improper proselytism,” understood as coercion, undue influence, or exploitation of vulnerability; restrictions require a factual basis showing such pressure.
- In assessing necessity and proportionality under Article 9, the recipient’s vulnerability matters: military hierarchy can create pressure that justifies special protective measures for subordinates.
- Criminal sanctions for religious persuasion directed at civilians, absent evidence of coercion or undue influence, are not “necessary in a democratic society.”
Conclusion
The court upheld Greece’s ability to sanction proselytism by superior officers toward military subordinates where hierarchical pressure was shown, but held that punishing similar religious persuasion toward civilians without proof of coercion violated the applicants’ Article 9 rights.