DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38178/97
by Ibraim SERIF
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 26 January 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Fischbach, President,
MrC. Rozakis,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsTsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, Judges,
withMrErik Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 29 September 1997 by Ibraim Serif against Greece and registered on 9 October 1997 under file no. 38178/97;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 30 April 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 3 July 1998;
Having regard to the parties’ oral submissions at the hearing on 26 January 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1951. He is a theological school graduate and resides in Komotini. In the proceedings before the Court he is represented by Mr Sempahedin Emin, a lawyer practising in Komotini, and Mr Tekin Akillioglu, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
The two Moslem religious leaders of Thrace are the Mufti of Xanthi and the Mufti of Rodopi. In 1985 the Mufti of Rodopi died. The State appointed a Mufti ad interim. When he resigned, a second Mufti ad interim, Mr MT, was appointed. On 6 April 1990 the President of the Republic confirmed MT in the post of Mufti of Rodopi.
In December 1990, the two independent Moslem Members of Parliament for Xanthi and Rodopi requested the State to organise elections for the two posts of Mufti, as the law then in force provided. Having received no reply, they decided to organise themselves elections at the mosques on Friday 28 December 1990 after the prayers.
On 24 December 1990 the President of the Republic, on the proposal of the Council of Ministers and under Article 44 § 1 of the Constitution, adopted a legislative act (praxi nomothetiku periehomenu) by which the manner of selection of the Muftis was changed. According to the new act, the Muftis are appointed by presidential decree on the proposal of the Minister of Education who, in his turn, must consult a committee composed of the local Prefect (nomarhis) and a number of Moslem dignitaries chosen by the State.
On 28 December 1990 the applicant was elected Mufti of Rodopi by those attending Friday prayers at the mosques. Together with other Moslems he challenged the lawfulness of MT’s appointment before the Council of State. These proceedings are still pending.
On 4 February 1991 Parliament enacted law 1920 retroactively, thereby validating the act of 24 December 1990.
The public prosecutor of Rodopi instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a "known religion" and for having publicly worn the uniform of such a minister without having the right to do so. On 8 November 1991 the Court of Cassation, considering that there might be disturbances in Rodopi, decided, under Articles 136 and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the case should be heard in Thessaloniki.
On 5 March 1993 the public prosecutor of Thessaloniki summoned the applicant to appear before the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Thessaloniki to be tried for the offences provided for under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code.
The applicant was tried by the criminal court of Thessaloniki on 12 December 1994. He was legally represented. The court heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses. Although one witness testified that the applicant had taken part in religious ceremonies, none of the witnesses testified that the applicant had purported to discharge the judicial functions that the Mufti is entrusted with by Greek law. Moreover, a number of witnesses testified that there did not exist an official uniform for the Muftis. However, one prosecution witness testified that, although in principle all Moslems are allowed to wear the black gown in which the applicant had been appearing, according to local custom this had become the privilege of the Mufti.
On 12 December 1994 the court found the applicant guilty of the offences provided for under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code. According to the court, these offences had been committed between 17 January 1991 and 28 February 1991, a period during which the applicant had discharged the entirety of the functions of the Mufti of Rodopi by officiating at wedding ceremonies, christening children, preaching and engaging in administrative activities. In particular, the court found that on 17 January 1991 the applicant had issued a message to his fellow Moslems about the religious significance of the Regaib Kandil feast thanking them at the same time for his election as Mufti. On 15 February 1991, in the capacity of a Mufti, he had attended the inauguration of the hall of the "Union of the Turkish Youth of Komitini" wearing clothes which, according to Moslem custom, only the Mufti is allowed to wear. On 27 February 1991 he had issued another message on the occasion of the Berat Kandil feast. Finally, on 28 February 1991 and in the same capacity he had attended a religious gathering of 2,000 Moslems at Dokos, a village in Rodopi, and had delivered the keynote speech. Moreover, the court found that the applicant had repeatedly worn the official uniform of the Mufti in public. The court imposed on the applicant a commutable sentence of eight months' imprisonment.
The applicant appealed. The hearing of his appeal before the three-member criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Thessaloniki, sitting as a court of appeal, was adjourned on 24 May 1995 and 30 April 1996 because, inter alia, MT, the appointed Mufti, who had been called by the prosecution, did not appear to testify. MT was fined. The appeal was heard on 21 October 1996. The applicant was represented by counsel. In a decision issued on the same date the court upheld the applicant's conviction and imposed on him a sentence of six months' imprisonment to be commuted to a fine.
The applicant paid the fine and appealed in cassation. He submitted, inter alia, that the court of appeal had interpreted Article 175 of the Criminal Code erroneously when it considered that the offence could be committed even in circumstances when a person claimed to be a minister of a "known religion" without, however, discharging any of the functions of the minister's office. Moreover, the court was wrong in ignoring expert testimony that there did not exist an official Mufti uniform. The applicant had the right under Article 10 of the Convention to make the statements for which he had been convicted. "The office of the Mufti represented the free manifestation of the Moslem religion", the Moslem community had the right under the Treaty of Peace of Athens of 1913 to elect its Muftis and, therefore, his conviction violated Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. As a result of the numerous adjournments of his case, he did not have a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.
In the proceedings before the Court of Cassation the applicant was legally represented, as required by domestic law.
On 2 April 1997 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's appeal. It considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code was committed “when somebody appeared as a minister of a known religion and when he discharged the functions of the minister's office including any of the administrative functions pertaining thereto”. The Court considered that the applicant had committed this offence because he behaved and appeared as the Mufti of Rodopi wearing the uniform which, in people’s minds, belonged to the Mufti. In particular, the Court referred to the incidents of 17 January 1991, 15 February 1991, 27 February 1991 and 28 February 1991. The Court of Cassation did not address the applicant's arguments under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation considered that, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, no appeal in cassation could be lodged on the ground that a trial had been adjourned on numerous occasions.
B.Relevant domestic law and practice
1.Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace of Athens between Greece and others, on the one hand, and the Ottoman Empire, on the other, which was concluded on 17 May 1913 and ratified by the Greek Parliament by a law published in the Official Gazette on 14 November 1913, provides as follows:
(original)
"La vie, les biens, l'honneur, la religion et les coutumes de ceux des habitants des localités cédées à la Grèce qui resteront sous l'administration hellénique seront scrupuleusement respectés.
Ils jouiront entièrement des mêmes droits civils et politiques que les sujets hellènes d'origine. La liberté, la pratique extérieure du culte seront assurées aux Musulmans.
...
Aucune atteinte ne pourra être portée à l'autonomie et à l'organisation hiérarchique des communautés musulmanes existantes ou qui pourraient se former, ni à l'administration des fonds et immeubles qui leur appartiennent.
...
Les Muftis, chacun dans sa circonscription, seront élus par les électeurs musulmans.
...
Les Muftis, outre leur compétence sur les affaires purement religieuses et leur surveillance sur l'administration des biens Vacoufs, exerceront leur juridiction entre musulmans en matière de mariage, divorce, pensions alimentaires (néfaca), tutelle, curatelle, émancipation de mineurs, testaments islamiques et successions au poste de Mutévelli (Tévliét).
Les jugements rendus par les Muftis seront mis à exécution par les autorités helléniques compétentes.
Quant aux successions, les parties Musulmanes intéressées pourront, après accord préalable, avoir recours au mufti, en qualité d'arbitre. Contre le jugement arbitral ainsi rendu toutes les voies de recours devant les tribunaux du pays seront admises, à moins d'une clause contraire expressément stipulée."
On 10 August 1920 Greece concluded two treaties with the principal Allied Powers in Sèvres. By the first treaty the Allied powers transferred to Greece all the rights and titles which they had acquired over Thrace by virtue of the Peace Treaty they had signed with Bulgaria at Neuilly-sur-Seine on 27 November 1919. The second treaty concerned the protection of minorities in Greece. Article 14 § 1 of the second treaty provides as follows:
“Greece agrees to take all necessary measures in relation to the Moslems to enable questions of family law and personal status to be regulated in accordance with Moslem usage.”
On 30 January 1923 Greece and Turkey signed a treaty for the exchange of populations. On 24 July 1923 Greece and others, on the one hand, and Turkey, on the other, signed the Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Articles 42 and 45 of this treaty give the Moslem minority of Greece the same protection as Article 14 § 1 of the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities of Sèvres. On the same day Greece signed a Protocol with the principal Allied Powers bringing into force the two treaties concluded in Sèvres on 10 August 1920. The Greek Parliament ratified the three above-mentioned treaties by a law published in the Official Gazette on 25 August 1923
In its decision No. 1723/80 the Court of Cassation considered that it was obliged to apply Islamic law in certain disputes between Moslems by virtue of the Treaty of Peace of Athens of 1913, the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities of Sèvres of 1920 and the Treaty of Peace of Lausanne of 1923.
2.Law 2345/1920 provided that the Muftis, in addition to their religious functions, would have competence to adjudicate on family and inheritance disputes between Moslems insofar as these disputes are governed by Islamic law. It also provided that the Muftis were directly elected by the Moslems who had the right to vote in the national elections and who resided in the Prefectures in which the Muftis would serve. The elections were to be organised by the State and theological school graduates had the right to be candidates. Article 6 § 8 of the law provided for the promulgation of a royal decree to make detailed arrangements for the elections of the Muftis.
Such a decree was never promulgated. The State appointed a Mufti in Rodopi in 1920 and another one in March 1935. In June 1935 a Mufti ad interim was appointed by the State. In the course of the same year the State appointed a regular Mufti. This Mufti was replaced by another in 1941 when Bulgaria occupied Thrace. He was re-appointed by the Greek State in 1944. In 1948 the Greek authorities appointed a Mufti ad interim until 1949 when a regular Mufti was appointed. The latter served until 1985 when he died.
Under the legislative act of 24 December 1990 the functions and qualifications of the Muftis remain largely unchanged. However, provision is made for the appointment of the Muftis by presidential decree following a proposal by the Minister of Education who, in his turn, must consult a committee composed of the local Prefect (nomarhis) and a number of Moslem dignitaries chosen by the State. The act expressly abrogates law 2345/1920. In the act it is envisaged that it should be ratified by law in accordance with Article 44 § 1 of the Constitution.
Law 1920/1991 retroactively validated the legislative act of 24 December 1990.
Article 44 § 1 of the Constitution provides as follows:
"In exceptional circumstances, when an extremely urgent and unforeseeable need arises, the President of the Republic may, on the proposal of the Council of Ministers, adopt legislative acts. These acts must be submitted to Parliament for approval ... within forty days ..."
3.Article 175 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
"1. A person who intentionally usurps the functions of a State or municipal official is punished with imprisonment up to a year or a fine.
2. This provision also applies when a person usurps the functions of a lawyer or a minister of the Greek Orthodox Church or another known religion."
The Court of Cassation has considered that this provision applies in the case of a former priest of the Greek Orthodox Church who continues to wear the priest robes (decision No. 378/80). The priest in question was defrocked after he joined the Old Calendarists, a religious movement formed by Greek Orthodox priests who wanted the Church to maintain the Julian calendar. In decision No. 454/66 the Court of Cassation considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code is also committed by a person who purports to discharge the administrative functions of a priest. In decisions Nos. 140/64 and 476/71 the Court of Cassation applied Article 175 of the Code to cases of persons who had purported to exercise the religious functions of an Orthodox priest by conducting services, christening children etc.
Article 176 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
"A person who publicly wears the uniform or the insignia of a State or municipal official or of a religious minister of those referred to in Article 175 § 2 without having the right to do so ... is punished with imprisonment up to six months or a fine."
4.Under Article 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the time-limit for submitting an appeal in cassation starts running from the “finalisation” of the judgment of the court of appeal, i.e. from the date when the judgment is entered in a special book kept at the registry of the court.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the fairness of his conviction. He submits in this connection that it had not been shown that he had discharged any of the functions of a Mufti, that there does not exist an official Mufti uniform, that the Moslem religion does not provide for the christening of children and that the courts had failed to specify at which marriage ceremonies of which persons he had officiated. He also complains that, although the case concerned the Moslem faith, the courts did not hear any Moslem witnesses for the prosecution. Finally, he complains that he was tried in Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki being 280 kilometres away from Komotini, he could not have easy access to the case-file and had been obliged to lodge his appeal in cassation without reading the appellate court's decision.
2.The applicant also complains under Article 9 of the Convention that he was convicted although the Moslems of Rodopi have the right to elect their Mufti.
3.Finally, the applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was convicted for certain statements he had made.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 September 1997 and registered on 9 October 1997.
On 12 January 1998, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 30 April 1998, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 3 July 1998.
By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the application is examined by the European Court of Human Rights as from that date.
On 17 November 1998, the Court decided to invite the parties to a hearing on admissibility and merits. The hearing took place on 26 January 1999. The parties were represented as follows:
(a)for the Government
MrG. Kanellopoulos, Senior Adviser, Legal Council of the State, Acting Agent,
MrsM. Telalian, Deputy Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
MrV. Kyriazopoulos, Legal Assistant, Legal Council of the State, Advisers;
(b)for the applicant
MrT. Akillioglu,
MrS. Emin,Counsels;
The applicant was also present.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his conviction was unfair.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing”.
The Government submit that the Court is not competent to examine complaints concerning the assessment of the evidence or errors as to domestic law allegedly committed by the national courts. The procedure followed by the national courts in the applicant’s case was fair. Moreover, the same courts provided adequate reasons for their decisions. Finally, in reply to the applicant’s allegation that he lodged his appeal in cassation without having had the chance to read the appeal court’s judgment, the Government point out that the applicant in his grounds of appeal in cassation stated that he had consulted the text of the decision of the appeal court.
The applicant submits that he was convicted although it had not been shown that he had discharged any of the functions of a Mufti. He also claims that there does not exist an official Mufti uniform, that the Moslem religion does not provide for the christening of children and that the courts had failed to specify at which marriage ceremonies of which persons he had officiated. Moreover, he points out that, although the case concerned the Moslem faith, the courts did not hear any Moslem witnesses for the prosecution. The State-appointed Mufti was called as a witness but failed to appear. Finally, the applicant considers that he was prejudiced in his defence by the fact that his case was heard in Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki being 280 kilometres away from Komotini, he could not have easy access to the case-file and had been obliged to lodge his appeal in cassation without reading the appellate court's decision.
The Court recalls that it is not competent to deal with applications alleging that errors of national law have been committed by the national courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999 to be published, § 28). Moreover, it is not its rôle to examine whether a national court has assessed the evidence in a case correctly. The Court’s task is to establish whether the evidence for and against the accused was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair trial (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 26). Its essential task is to examine whether the proceedings as a whole satisfied the condition of “a fair hearing”. The Court notes that the applicant had the opportunity to examine the prosecution witnesses that appeared before the courts. It is true that the State-appointed Mufti was called but did not appear. However, the applicant does not allege that the State-appointed Mufti had at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings made statements incriminating him and that these statements were taken into consideration by the domestic courts (cf. Eur. Court HR, Barbera and others v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no 146). Nor did the applicant show that the appearance at the trial of the State-appointed Mufti or of “other Moslem witnesses” could have led to his acquittal (Eur. Court HR, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B). Finally, the Court notes that the applicant had the opportunity to call witnesses in his defence and that he was legally represented throughout the proceedings.
As regards, the applicant’s complaint that he was tried in Thessaloniki, the Court notes that the applicant did not show that this fact caused real difficulties to his defence team. The Court also recalls in this connection that, according to Article 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant had the right to wait for the “finalisation” of the court of appeal’s judgment before lodging his appeal in cassation.
In the light of all the above, the Court considers that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
2.The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that he was convicted although the Moslems of Rodopi have the right to elect their Mufti.
Article 9 of the Convention provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The Government argue that the complaint under Article 9 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae or that there has been no interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of religion because Article 9 does not guarantee the applicant the right to impose on the others his understanding as to Greece’s obligations under the Treaty of Peace of Athens.
In any event, even if there had been an interference, the Government argue that it would have been justified under the second paragraph of Article 9. It was provided by law, Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code. These provisions have been interpreted by the courts in a manner which rendered his conviction foreseeable. The interference served a legitimate purpose. By protecting the authority of the lawful Mufti the domestic courts sought to preserve order in the particular religious community and in society at large. They also sought to protect the international relations of the country, an area over which States exercise unlimited discretion.
The Government contend that the interference was necessary in a democratic society. The law on the election of the Muftis had fallen into desuetude. Moreover, the provisions of the Treaty of Peace of Athens, which had been concluded when Thrace was not part of Greece, became devoid of purpose after the compulsory exchange of populations in 1923. This is when Greece exchanged all the Moslems who were living on the territories in its possession when the Treaty of Peace of Athens was concluded. In any event, the provisions of the Treaty of Peace of Athens were superseded by the provisions of the Treaty of Sèvres for the Protection of Minorities in Greece and the Treaty of Peace of Lausanne and these treaties make no provision for the election of the Muftis. In many countries, the Muftis are appointed by the State. Moreover, Muftis exercise important judicial functions in Greece and judges cannot be elected by the people. In the light of all the above, the Government contend that the appointment of the Mufti by the State cannot in itself raise an issue under Article 9.
Moreover, the Government submit that the Court of Cassation did not convict the applicant simply because he appeared as the Mufti. The court considered that the offence in Article 175 is committed when somebody actually discharges the functions of a religious minister. The court also considered that the acts that the applicant engaged in fell within the administrative functions of a Mufti in the broad sense of the term. Given that there were two Muftis in Rodopi at the time, the courts had to convict the spurious one in order not to create tension among the Moslems, between the Moslems and Christians and between Turkey and Greece. The applicant questioned the legality of the acts of the lawful Mufti. In any event, the State had to protect the office of the Mufti and, even if there did not exist a lawfully appointed Mufti, the applicant had to be punished. Finally, the “election” of the applicant was flawed because it was not the result of a democratic procedure and the applicant was used by the local Moslem MP for party political purposes.
The applicant disagrees. He considers that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Moslems had never accepted the abrogation of law 2345. The applicant points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Moslems of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment.
The applicant further contends that the vast majority of Moslems in Thrace want him to be their Mufti. Convicting him amounts to an interference of his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turn to him for spiritual guidance. Such an interference cannot be justified in a democratic society where the State should not interfere with individual choices in the field of personal conscience. His conviction is just one aspect of the policy of repression applied by the Greek State vis-à-vis the Turkish-Moslem minority of Western Thrace.
In the light of the parties’ observations, the Court considers that this part of the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination on the merits. It cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
3.The applicant complains that his conviction violated Article 10 of the Convention.
Article 10 of the Convention provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies because he did not argue before the Greek courts that his appearance in a certain uniform was intended to express an opinion. They also argue that the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant was not punished for expressing any views. He was punished for having usurped the functions of a Mufti. As for the rest, they reiterate the submissions they have made under Article 9 of the Convention.
The applicant considers that he has exhausted domestic remedies. He also argues that he was convicted for certain statements that he had made and for appearing in certain clothes. He recalls in this connection that, according to the Commission’s case-law, freedom of expression may include freedom to communicate ideas through one’s dress (No. 11674/85, Dec. 3.3.86, D.R. 46, p. 245).
The Court notes that in his appeal in cassation the applicant raised the above complaints in substance and, moreover, relied expressly on Article 10 of the Convention. It finds that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
In the light of the parties’ observations, the Court considers that this part of the application also raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination on the merits. It cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the applicant's complaints that his conviction for usurping the functions of the Mufti and appearing in public in the Mufti’s uniform violated his rights to freedom of religion and expression;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghMarc Fischbach
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy