Kokkinakis v. Greece

Last updated

Kokkinakis v. Greece (application No. 14307/88) is a landmark case of the European Court of Human Rights, decided in 1993 and concerning compatibility of certain sanctions for proselytism with Articles 7 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ruled by a vote of six-to-three that a Jehovah's Witness man's freedom to manifest his religion, protected by Article 9, had been violated by the Greek government. One of the judges wrote that this case was "of particular importance" because it was "the first real case concerning freedom of religion to have come before the European Court since it was set up" in 1959. [1]

Contents

Facts

The crime of proselytism, according to Greek law, meant "in particular, any direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persuasion (eterodoxos), with the aim of undermining those beliefs, either by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance, or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of his inexperience, trust, need, low intellect or naïvety". Greek court has later clarified that "purely spiritual teaching does not amount to proselytism, even if it demonstrates the errors of other religions and entices possible disciples away from them, who abandon their original religions of their own free will; this is because spiritual teaching is in the nature of a rite of worship performed freely and without hindrance. Outside such spiritual teaching, which may be freely given, any determined, importunate attempt to entice disciples away from the dominant religion by means that are unlawful or morally reprehensible constitutes proselytism as prohibited". [2]

Mr. Minos Kokkinakis, a Jehovah's Witness, and his wife, called at the home of Mrs Kyriakaki in Sitia and engaged in a discussion with her, described by Ms. Kyriakaki as follows: "They immediately talked to me about Olof Palme, whether he was a pacifist or not, and other subjects that I can’t remember. They talked to me about things I did not understand very well. It was not a discussion but a constant monologue by them. ... If they had told me they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would not have let them in. I don’t recall whether they spoke to me about the Kingdom of Heaven. They stayed in the house about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. What they told me was religious in nature, but I don’t know why they told it to me. I could not know at the outset what the purpose of their visit was. They may have said something to me at the time with a view to undermining my religious beliefs... [However,] the discussion did not influence my beliefs". Mrs Kyriakaki’s husband, who was the cantor at a local Orthodox church, informed the police and Mr. Kokkinakis was convicted for proselytism. [3]

Mr. Kokkinakis appealed to the ECtHR under Articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [4] The court's Commission unanimously held that there had been a violation of Kokkinakis' rights under Article 9. [5]

Court's judgment

The court held that the measure complained of was prescribed by law and was in pursuit of a legitimate aim under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. [6] However, it found a violation of Article 9 (by six votes to three), reasoning that the interference with Kokkinakis' freedom of religion was not necessary in a democratic society since: a "distinction has to be made between bearing Christian witness and improper proselytism. The former corresponds to true evangelism, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. The latter represents a corruption or deformation of it. It may, according to the same report, take the form of activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a Church or exerting improper pressure on people in distress or in need; it may even entail the use of violence or brainwashing; more generally, it is not compatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others. Scrutiny of section 4 of Law no. 1363/1938 shows that the relevant criteria adopted by the Greek legislature are reconcilable with the foregoing if and in so far as they are designed only to punish improper proselytism, which the Court does not have to define in the abstract in the present case. The Court notes, however, that in their reasoning the Greek courts established the applicant’s liability by merely reproducing the wording of section 4 and did not sufficiently specify in what way the accused had attempted to convince his neighbour by improper means. None of the facts they set out warrants that finding. That being so, it has not been shown that the applicant’s conviction was justified in the circumstances of the case by a pressing social need. The contested measure therefore does not appear to have been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued". [7]

The Court rejected (by eight votes to one) applicant's claim that the provision of Greek law serving as ground for his conviction was not sufficiently precise and clear, violating Article 7. [8]

The Court held unnecessary to examine the case under Article 10 or 14.

Judge Pettiti submitted a partly concurring opinion, considering that the criminal legislation in Greece on proselytism was in itself contrary to Article 9. Judge De Meyer submitted a short concurring opinion.

Judges Foighel and Loizou, jointly, and Judge Valticos filed two dissenting opinions, regarding Article 9 as not violated.

Judge Martens filed a partly dissenting opinion, offering his own rationale for the finding of violation of Article 9 and also considering Article 7 to be violated.

Related Research Articles

European Court of Human Rights Supranational court in Strasbourg, France, established by the European Convention on Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights, also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the Convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

Numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have been heard by Supreme Courts throughout the world. The cases revolve around three main subjects:

Human Rights Act 1998 Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Dudgeon v the United Kingdom (1981) was a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, which held that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which criminalised male homosexual acts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was significant

  1. as the first successful case before the ECtHR on the criminalisation of male homosexuality
  2. as the case which led to legislation in 1982 bringing the law on male homosexuality in Northern Ireland into line with that in Scotland and in England and Wales ;
  3. as a lead-in to Norris v. Ireland, a later case before the ECtHR argued by Mary Robinson, which challenged the continued application of the same 1885 law in the Republic of Ireland; and,
  4. for setting the legal precedent that ultimately resulted in the Council of Europe requiring that no member state could criminalise male or female homosexual behaviour.

Minos Kokkinakis was a Greek member of Jehovah's Witnesses. He is most notable for his repeated clashes with Greece's ban on proselytism.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"

Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that:

"Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population"

Buscarini and Others v. San Marino was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1999.

Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights concerning discrimination of Romani children in the education system of the Czech Republic.

Vogt v. Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205, (17851/91) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1995. The case concerned a Mrs. Vogt who was suspended from her teaching job at a public secondary school because of her past membership in the German Communist Party. The ECHR ruled that this application of Berufsverbot violated provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore Guarantee of the freedom of religion

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15(1) states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."

<i>Tyrer v. the United Kingdom</i>

Tyrer v. the United Kingdom was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1978.

Ciubotaru v. Moldova was a case decided by European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Mihai Ciubotaru sought to have his ethnicity changed from Moldovan to Romanian on his birth and marriage certificates, which Moldova refused. The Court found that Moldova's procedure for changing ethnicity of record violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008.

Schalk and Kopf v Austria is a case decided in 2010 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in which it was clarified that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not oblige member states to legislate for or legally recognize same-sex marriages.

<i>Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor</i> 1994 High Court judgement on constitutionality of Government orders to deregister and ban Jehovahs Witnesses

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor is a 1994 judgment of the High Court of Singapore delivered by Chief Justice Yong Pung How which held that orders issued by the Government deregistering the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses under the Societies Act and banning works published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society ("WTBTS") under the Undesirable Publications Act did not violate the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, an ultranationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide.

Greece was not one of the ten founding members of the Council of Europe, but it was the first state to join, doing so three months later, on 9 August 1949. In 1953, the Hellenic Parliament unanimously ratified the Council of Europe's human rights treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights, and its first protocol. Greece filed the first interstate case before the European Commission of Human Rights, Greece v. United Kingdom, in 1956, alleging human rights violations in British Cyprus.

References

  1. ↑ ECtHR judgment, partly concurring opinion of Judge Pettiti
  2. ↑ ECtHR judgment, paras. 16-17
  3. ↑ ECtHR judgment, paras. 7-12
  4. ↑ ECtHR judgment, para. 25
  5. ↑ ECtHR judgment, para. 26
  6. ↑ ECtHR judgment, paras. 37-44
  7. ↑ ECtHR judgment, paras. 48-49
  8. ↑ ECtHR judgment, paras. 51-53
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.