Information Note on the Court’s case-law
May 1997
Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece - 19234/91 and 19233/91
Judgment 29.5.1997
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Article 5-5
Compensation
Detention of Jehovah's Witnesses' ministers following refusal to exempt them from military service: 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 5 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Paragraph 1
Lawfulness of applicants' detention to be examined under Article 5 § 1 (a).
Section 6 of 1988 Law refers to ministers of all "known religions" - Supreme Administrative Court had acknowledged that Jehovah's Witnesses were to be considered as such - undisputed throughout proceedings that applicants were ministers of that religion ‑ treatment of applicants discriminatory when compared to ministers of Greek Orthodox Church - failure of military courts to take account of the above resulted in applicants' arbitrary detention contrary to domestic law.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
B.Paragraph 5
Applicants' detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 but applicants were refused compensation by domestic courts.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14
Complaints centred around issue of applicants' detention pending administrative decision on applications for exemption - Court already found that applicants' detention was arbitrary under Article 5 § 1.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine complaints (unanimously).
III.ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Given finding in respect of Article 5 § 5, not necessary to examine complaint under this head.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
Complaint not substantiated before Court.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
V.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage: awarded on an equitable basis.
B.Costs and expenses: awarded on an equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (unanimously).
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy