Resolution ResDH(2004)80
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 24 February 1998
in the case of Larissis and Others 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 case of Larissis and Others delivered on 24 February 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under former Article 54;
Recalling that the case originated in three applications (Nos. 23372/94, 26377/95 and 26378/94) against Greece, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 January 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Dimitrios Larissis, Mr Savvas Mandalarides and Mr Ioannis Sarandis, Greek nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible their complaints that their convictions for proselytism were not in accordance with law on account of the lack of clarity of the law on proselytism, that their convictions had constituted unjustified interferences with their right to freedom of religion and expression and that they had been subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 28 October 1996;
Whereas in its judgment of 24 February 1998 the Court:
- held, by eight votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
- held, by eight votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 9 with regard to the measures taken against the first, second and third applicants for the proselytising of airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis;
- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention with regard to the measures taken against the first and third applicants for the proselytising of airman Kafkas;
- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention with regard to the measures taken against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of the civilians;
- held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 10 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention taken together in relation to the measures taken against the first, second and third applicants for the proselytising of the airmen;
- held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Articles 9 and 14 taken together in relation to the measures taken against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of the civilians;
- held, by seven votes to two,
(a) that the respondent state was to pay the second and third applicants, within three months, in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, 500 000 Greek drachmas each;
(b) that the respondent state was to pay to the second and third applicants, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses, 6 000 pounds sterling in total, together with any value added tax which may be payable, less 11,149 French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the judgment;
(c) that simple interest would be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, at an annual rate of 6% in respect of the amount awarded in drachmas and at an annual rate of 8% in respect of the amount awarded in pounds sterling;
- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the 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 24 February 1998, 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 preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 3 June 1998 the government of the respondent state paid the second and third applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 24 February 1998, including the default interest due,
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)80
Information provided by the Government of Greece
during the examination of the Larissis and others case
by the Committee of Ministers
As regards individual measures, the Greek government informed the Committee of Ministers that since the entry into force of Law 2865/2000 reopening of domestic criminal proceedings is possible, upon application, among others, 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 consequence, the impugned criminal convictions may henceforth be easily and rapidly erased from the applicants' criminal records upon their request through the reopening of the criminal proceedings.
Concerning general measures, the judgment of the European Court was rapidly transmitted by the State Legal Council to the President and the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation so that they might take it into account in their practice. The Government recalls in this respect that the European Convention and the European Court's case-law are granted direct effect by all highest judicial organs in Greece (see in particular Resolution DH(99)714 concerning the case of Papageorgiou against Greece). As a result, since the dissemination of the Larissis and others judgment, no prosecution has been initiated or conviction imposed in similar cases.
The Greek government, therefore, considers that Greece has satisfied its obligation under Article 46 (former Article 54), paragraph 1 of the Convention to remedy the consequences of the violation for the applicants and to prevent new similar violations.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy