SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48895/99
by Evangelos SKORDAS
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrA.B. Baka, President,
MrC.L. Rozakis,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 January 1998 and registered on 21 June 1999,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Greek national, born in 1928 and living in Athens. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Papoutsidakis, a lawyer practising in Athens.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Greek Orthodox priest belonging to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Nea Smirni. On 7 March 1995 the bishop exempted the applicant from his duties as president of the ecclesiastical council of his parish.
Following this incident the applicant asked his bishop to allow him to transfer to the Bishopric of Piraeus, the head of which was willing to have him. However, the Bishop of Nea Smirni refused without giving any reasons. The Bishop of Nea Smirni also instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant before the local ecclesiastical tribunal on the ground that he had stopped publishing a journal.
On 11 October 1995 the Bishop of Nea Smirni ordered the applicant not to celebrate mass pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. On 22 November 1995 the applicant challenged the bishop’s decision before the Council of State.
On 24 January 1996 the applicant retired by virtue of a decision of the competent State authorities. However, the Bishop of Nea Smirni continued refusing him permission to transfer to another bishopric in which he could continue to act as a priest on an unremunerated basis.
On 6 June 1996 the ecclesiastical court of the Bishopric of Nea Smirni ordered the applicant, by way of disciplinary penalty, to refrain from all activities as a priest during six months.
On 31 July 1996 the applicant challenged the refusal of the bishop to give him permission to transfer to Piraeus before the multi-member first instance civil court (polimeles protodikio) of Athens.
On 31 October 1996 the Council of State quashed the decision of 11 October 1995 of the Bishop of Nea Smirni on the ground that it was issued without the applicant having been heard.
On 27 January 1997 the public prosecutor of the first instance criminal court (isangeleas plimmeliodikon) of Athens refused to institute criminal proceedings against the Bishop of Nea Smirni, as the applicant had requested him to do, finding, inter alia, that the refusal of the bishop to grant the applicant permission to transfer was not subject to review.
On 28 February 1997 the public prosecutor of the Court of Appeal (isangeleas efeton) of Athens upheld the decision of 27 January 1997 of the public prosecutor of the first instance criminal court.
On 31 July 1997 the civil court of Athens decided that it could not review the refusal of the bishop to give the applicant permission to transfer because this was a “spiritual” matter.
On 20 October 1998 the ecclesiastical court of the Bishopric of Nea Smirni found, inter alia, that the applicant had defied its previous decision of 6 June 1996 because he had celebrated mass with the permission of the local bishops in other bishoprics on specific occasions. It ordered the applicant, by way of disciplinary penalty, to refrain from all church activities during six months. The applicant challenged this decision before the Council of State. The proceedings before the Council of State are still pending.
In the meantime the Bishop of Nea Smirni instituted a fresh set of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on the ground that he had given an interview to the press. On 5 July 1999 the ecclesiastical court of the Bishopric of Nea Smirni referred the case to the Holy Synod first instance court (Protovathmio Sinodiko Dikastirio).
On 18 August 1999 the Bishop of Nea Smirni ordered the applicant not to celebrate mass pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3, 4 and 9 of the Convention of his inability to act as a priest.
THE LAW
The applicant, a Greek orthodox priest who has retired, complains under Articles 3, 4 and 9 of the Convention of his inability to act as a priest on an unremunerated basis.
Article 3 of the Convention prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 4 prohibits slavery and forced labour. Article 9 guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
However, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether the applicant’s complaints can raise an issue under these provisions.
The Court notes that, despite his retirement, the applicant continues to be under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Nea Smirni. He is unable to transfer to another bishopric because of the refusal of the bishop to give him permission, which refusal the Court is prepared to assume that the applicant cannot challenge before the domestic courts as evidenced by the decision of 31 July 1997 of the civil court of Athens. However, the Court notes that, according to all indications in the file, the applicant remains in principle able to act as a priest in Nea Smirni as well as in other bishoprics on an ad hoc basis.
It is true that the applicant has been the subject of three set of disciplinary proceedings in Nea Smirni and that, as a result of the decisions of 6 June 1996 and 20 October 1998 of the local ecclesiastical court, he was unable to engage in any church activities for two periods of six months each. Moreover, he is currently unable to do so as a result of the interim-measures decision of the Bishop of Nea Smirni of 18 August 1999. However, the applicant did not challenge the decision of 6 June 1996 of the ecclesiastical court and the decision of 18 August 1999 of the Bishop of Nea Smirni before the Council of State, while the proceedings he instituted in connection with the ecclesiastical court decision of 20 October 1998 are still pending.
The Court, therefore, considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that the application must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Erik FriberghAndras Baka
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy