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
- 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.
- 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.