## Facts

- Titos Manoussakis, Constantinos Makridakis, Kyriakos Baxevanis, and Vassilios Hadjakis were Greek nationals and Jehovah’s Witnesses living in Crete.
- They rented a room in Heraklion to hold religious meetings and worship.
- Greek law (including Law No. 1363/1938 and a 1939 royal decree) required prior authorization to establish and operate a non-Orthodox place of worship, with involvement of the local Orthodox ecclesiastical authority and a decision by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs.
- The applicants applied to the Ministry for authorization to use the rented room as a place of worship.
- For years, the Ministry did not issue a decision, stating that it could not decide because it lacked information from other public bodies.
- While the application remained unresolved, the applicants were prosecuted for establishing and operating a place of worship without authorization.
- A criminal court acquitted the applicants at first instance.
- On appeal, a criminal appellate court convicted them and imposed short prison sentences (convertible to fines) and monetary penalties.
- The Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal and upheld the convictions.
- The applicants then complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their convictions violated their right to manifest religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicants’ convictions for operating a place of worship without prior authorization interfered with their Article 9 right to manifest religion, and, if so, whether that interference was justified under Article 9(2) as lawful, aimed at a legitimate objective, and necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether the application was inadmissible for non-exhaustion because the applicants did not pursue administrative proceedings about the Ministry’s failure to decide the authorization request.

## Decision

- The Court rejected the Government’s non-exhaustion objection, holding that the applicants had exhausted the remedies linked to the interference they complained of—namely, the criminal proceedings that ended with a final decision by the Court of Cassation—and that separate administrative steps about official inaction were not shown to be an effective remedy against the convictions.
- The Court held that the applicants’ criminal convictions and penalties were an interference with their freedom to manifest religion under Article 9.
- The interference was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 9(2), because it was based on legislation governing the establishment and operation of places of worship.
- The Court accepted that the system pursued aims that may be legitimate under Article 9(2), such as the protection of public order and the rights of others.
- The Court nonetheless found the interference not “necessary in a democratic society,” because the authorization system, as applied, exposed minority worship to arbitrary obstacles: the authorities’ prolonged failure to decide the application, combined with criminal prosecution of individuals who had attempted to obtain authorization, made the restriction disproportionate.
- The Court found a violation of Article 9 and awarded just satisfaction, including compensation for non-pecuniary damage and an award for costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 9 protects not only holding beliefs but also manifesting religion in worship and religious meetings; criminal sanctions for worship can amount to an interference with Article 9 rights.
- A prior-authorization requirement for opening and operating a place of worship is not automatically incompatible with Article 9, but the way it is administered must contain practical safeguards against arbitrary delay or obstruction.
- States have no power to decide whether religious beliefs are legitimate; limits on manifestation must be justified only within the strict framework of Article 9(2).
- When individuals try to comply with an authorization regime, and the State delays or blocks decision-making while prosecuting them for lack of authorization, the resulting convictions are unlikely to satisfy the requirement of proportionality and a pressing social need.
- Exhaustion of domestic remedies does not require applicants to pursue additional procedures that are not shown to be effective to prevent or remedy the specific interference complained of.

## Conclusion

The European Court of Human Rights held that Greece violated Article 9 by convicting Jehovah’s Witnesses for operating a place of worship without prior authorization where the authorities kept the permit application unresolved for years and then relied on that lack of authorization to impose criminal penalties, resulting in a disproportionate restriction on religious worship.


Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 23 Eur. H.R. Rep. 387, 407 (1997)