Resolution ResDH(2004)79
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 25 November 1997
in the case of Grigoriades against Greece
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 December 2004
at the 906th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Grigoriades case delivered on 25 November 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under former Article 54;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 24348/94) against Greece, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 March 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Panayiotis Grigoriades, a Greek national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that his conviction for insulting the army under Article 74 of the Military Criminal Code had amounted to a breach of his freedom of expression and was not in accordance with the law on account of the insufficiently exact wording of the said Article 74;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16 September 1996;
Whereas in its judgment of 25 November 1997 the Court:
- held, by twelve votes to eight, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
- held, by seventeen votes to three
(a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant might have suffered;
(b) the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months, 2 000 000 Greek drachmas, plus any value-added tax that might be payable, in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 6% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- rejected, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11, these Rules are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 54;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 25 November 1997, having regard to Greece's obligation under former Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken to erase the consequences for the applicant of the violation found and to prevent new similar violations in the future; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 18 February 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 25 November 1997,
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Greece, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)79
Information provided by the Government of Greece
during the examination of the Grigoriades case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Greek government recalls that the violation found by the European Court in the present case was due to the applicant's prosecution and sentencing by the Military Appeal Court in 1989 to three months' imprisonment for insulting the army (Article 74 of the Military Criminal Code) by a letter he had sent to his unit's commanding officer containing strong and intemperate remarks regarding the Greek armed forces. The Court held that the sanction imposed was not justified under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention taking into account, in particular, that the applicant had not published the letter or disseminated it to a wider audience and that its objective impact on military discipline was insignificant (paragraph 47 of the judgment).
As regards individual measures, Greek Parliament adopted Law 2865/2000 allowing the reopening of domestic criminal proceedings, upon application, among others, of the individual concerned, in cases where the European Court has found a violation of a right concerning the fairness of a trial or of a substantive provision of the law (new Article 525 paragraph 1(5), of the Code of Criminal Procedure). As a result, the full erasure of the consequences of the violation found by the Court in the present case is now possible under Greek law.
As regards general measures, a new Military Criminal Code was adopted and entered into force (Law 2287/1995) a few years after the facts of the present case took place. Article 58 of the Code, which replaced former Article 74, provides that only a public expression of contempt for the armed forces may constitute an offence. The minimum punishment provided for by the same provision has also been limited to three months' imprisonment (former Article 74 provided for a minimum term of imprisonment of six months).
The judgment of the European Court was also disseminated to the competent judicial authorities to allow them to take it into account in their practice. The Government believes that, in view of the direct effect attributed to the Convention and the Court's judgments in Greek law (see, inter alia, Resolutions DH(99)714 in Papageorgiou against Greece and DH(2004)2 in Agoudimos and others against Greece), domestic courts will not fail to apply the new provisions of the Military Criminal Code in conformity with the Convention's requirements, as set out in the present judgment.
The Government therefore considers that Greece has satisfied its obligations under Article 46 paragraph, 1 (former Article 54) of the Convention to ensure the erasure of the consequences of the violation found in the present case and to prevent new similar violations in the future.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy