CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 février 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1998 Larissis and Others v. Greece - 23372/94 Judgment 24.2.1998 Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Conviction of air force officers for proselytism: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION Position in Greek law had not become any less clear since Court’s decision in Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment that requirements of certainty and foreseeability under Article   7 were satisfied by definition of offence of proselytism. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Interference : Not disputed that prosecution, conviction and punishment of applicants interfered with exercise of Article 9 rights. B.   “Prescribed by law” : Measures were “prescribed by law”, for same reason Article 7 not violated. C.   Legitimate aim : Protecting rights and freedoms of others. D.   “Necessary in a democratic society” 1.   General principles Principles set out in Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment restated. 2.   Proselytising of airmen Convention applies in principle to armed forces – military hierarchical structures may make it difficult for subordinate to withdraw from conversation initiated by superior, causing risk of harassment – States may therefore be justified in taking special measures to protect rights of subordinate members. Evidence that three subordinate airmen felt under pressure to take part in religious conversations with applicants, who were superior in rank – measures taken not particularly severe – not disproportionate. Conclusion: no violation regarding measures taken following proselytising of airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis (eight votes to one); no violation regarding measures taken following proselytising of airman Kafkas (seven votes to two). 3.   Proselytising of civilians No evidence civilians subjected to improper pressure. Measures therefore unjustified. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). III.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Conclusion : no separate issue (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLES 14 AND 9 OF THE CONVENTION No evidence law applied in discriminatory manner. Conclusion : no violation regarding proselytising of airmen (unanimously); no separate issue regarding proselytising of civilians (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. Costs and expenses: sums claimed awarded in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (seven votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes