## Facts

- In 1983, Iakovos Thlimmenos, a Greek national and Jehovah’s Witness, refused to wear a military uniform during a general mobilization because of his religious convictions.
- He was convicted of insubordination by the Athens Permanent Army Tribunal and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment; he was released on parole after two years and one day.
- In 1988, Thlimmenos sat for a public competitive examination to be appointed to one of twelve chartered accountant posts.
- At the time, only members of the Greek Institute of Chartered Accountants could lawfully provide chartered accountant services in Greece.
- Thlimmenos placed second among sixty candidates, but the Executive Board of the Institute refused to appoint him because domestic rules barred appointment of persons convicted of a “serious crime.”
- The “serious crime” relied on by the authorities was Thlimmenos’s insubordination conviction for refusing to wear a uniform on religious grounds.
- Thlimmenos challenged the refusal in the Greek administrative courts, arguing that treating his conviction like ordinary serious criminality violated freedom of religion and equality; his attempts failed, including before the Supreme Administrative Court.
- He then brought an application to the Strasbourg organs, complaining that the refusal violated Article 14 (non-discrimination) taken with Article 9 (freedom of religion), and also complaining about delay in the domestic proceedings under Article 6(1) (reasonable time).

## Issues

1. Whether Greece violated Article 14 taken together with Article 9 by refusing to appoint Thlimmenos as a chartered accountant solely because of a conviction that resulted from the exercise of his religious conscience.
2. Whether the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court violated Article 6(1)’s requirement of a hearing within a reasonable time.
3. Whether any separate issue required examination under Article 9 taken alone.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that Greece violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9.
- The Court reasoned that discrimination can arise not only from treating similarly situated persons differently without justification, but also from failing, without objective and reasonable justification, to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.
- The Court found that Greece applied a blanket exclusion based on conviction for a “serious crime” without taking account of the nature of Thlimmenos’s conviction, which stemmed from the exercise of his freedom of religion and did not imply dishonesty or moral unfitness for accountancy work.
- The Court concluded that Greece discriminated against Thlimmenos by failing to provide an appropriate exception (or comparable individualized treatment) for convictions like his when applying the professional disqualification rule.
- The Court also found a violation of Article 6(1) because the domestic proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time.
- The Court did not find it necessary to examine a separate claim under Article 9 taken alone after finding a violation of Article 14 taken with Article 9.

## Legal Principles

- Article 14 may be breached when a State, without objective and reasonable justification, fails to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.
- A generally applicable rule may be discriminatory as applied when it operates as a rigid bar and does not allow account to be taken of materially different circumstances relevant to the right at stake.
- When a prior conviction flows from the exercise of freedom of religion or conscience, treating it as equivalent to ordinary serious criminality for access to a regulated profession requires a justification that addresses that difference.
- Article 6(1) requires that proceedings determining civil rights and obligations be concluded within a reasonable time.

## Conclusion

The European Court of Human Rights held that Greece discriminated against Thlimmenos by excluding him from appointment as a chartered accountant based solely on a conviction for insubordination arising from his religiously motivated refusal to wear a military uniform, without an exception reflecting the distinctive character of that conviction, and it separately found that the length of the domestic proceedings violated Article 6(1).


Thlimmenos v. Greece, 31 Eur. Ct. H.R. 15 (2001)