Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 26695/95

Hristos Sidiropulos and 5 others

against

Greece

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 11 April 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 11-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 16-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 16-25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 25-30). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 31-79) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 31). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

B. Points at issue

(para. 32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

C. As regards Article 11 of the Convention

(paras. 33-59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

CONCLUSION

(para. 60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

D. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 61-64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CONCLUSION

(para. 65). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

E. As regards Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention

(paras. 66-69). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CONCLUSION

(para. 70). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

F. As regards Article 14 of the Convention

(paras. 71-74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CONCLUSION

(para. 75). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

G. Recapitulation

(paras. 76-79). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

APPENDIX I: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . 18

APPENDIX II: FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION OF

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THESSALONIKI

OF 8 MAY 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

APPENDIX III: ORIGINAL TEXT OF RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

APPENDIX IV: EXTRACTS FROM PRESS REPORTS RELIED ON

BY THE DOMESTIC COURTS . . . . . . . . . . . 37

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicants are six Greek citizens residing in Florina,

Greece: Hristos Sidiropulos, an electrician born in 1949 in Kastoria,

Greece, Petros Dimtsis, a professor born in 1957 in Florina, Stavros

Anastasiadis, a farmer born in 1944 in Florina, Anastasios Bules, a

farmer born in 1941 in Florina, Stavros Sovitslis, a farmer born

in 1950 in Florina, and Dimitrios Seltsas, a dentist born in 1956 in

Florina. They were represented before the Commission by

Mrs. I. Kurtovik, a lawyer practising in Athens.

3. The application is directed against Greece. The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. L. Papidas, President

of the Legal Advisory Council of State (Nomiko Simvulio tu Kratus),

Mr. P. Kamarineas, Member (Simvulos) of the Legal Advisory Council of

State, and Mrs. F. Dedoussi (Legal Assistant) of the Legal Advisory

Council of State.

4. The case concerns the refusal of the Greek courts to register an

association formed by the applicants and the fairness of the related

proceedings. The applicants invoke Articles 1, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of

the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 16 November 1994 and registered

on 14 March 1995.

6. On 26 June 1995 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to

submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 29 November 1995

after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The

applicants replied on 6 March 1996 after an extension of the

time-limit.

8. On 24 June 1996 the Commission declared the application

admissible insofar as it had been introduced by the six above-mentioned

applicants. It struck the application out of its list of cases insofar

as it had been introduced by a seventh applicant who had died in the

meantime.

9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 10 July 1996 and they were invited to submit such

further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The

parties have not availed themselves of this possibility.

10. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C. The present Report

11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

12. The text of this Report was adopted on 11 April 1997 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

13. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

14. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application

is annexed hereto as Appendix I.

15. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

16. On 18 April 1990 the applicants, who claim to be of "Macedonian"

ethnic origin and to have a "Macedonian national conscience", together

with 49 other persons, decided to establish a non-profit making

association (somatio) entitled "Home of Macedonian Civilisation"

("Stegi Makedoniku Politismu"). The seat of the association would be

Florina in a prefecture in the north of Greece bordering "the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Its aims, according to Article 2 of

its charter, were "(a) the cultural, intellectual and artistic

development of its members and of the people of Florina in general as

well as the development of a spirit of co-operation, solidarity and

love between them, (b) the cultural decentralisation and the protection

of the intellectual and artistic manifestations and traditions, the

monuments of civilisation and in general the preservation and

development of folk culture, and (c) the protection of the natural and

cultural environment of the region".

17. On 12 June 1990 the applicants, who constituted the provisional

management committee of the association, applied to the Multi-Member

First Instance Civil Court (Polimeles Protodikio) of Florina for

registration under Article 79 of the Civil Code.

18. On 9 August 1990 the first instance court, having heard the

applicants, refused their application on the ground that "the real aim

of the association was not the one mentioned in Article 2 of its

charter; it was to promote the idea that a Macedonian minority existed

in Greece and this was against the national interest of Greece and,

consequently, against the law".

19. On 7 September 1990 the applicants appealed. On 8 May 1991 the

Court of Appeal (Efetio) of Thessaloniki, having heard the applicants,

rejected their appeal (the full text of the appeal court's decision

appears in Appendix II). The court considered that, when examining an

application for the registration of an association, it was not bound

by ordinary rules concerning the burden of proof. When hearing such

applications, the court should not and could not limit itself to the

evidence proposed by the parties. In the particular case the court

accepted the following as true, on the basis that it was a matter of

public knowledge.

20. The area which corresponds to the Greek province of Macedonia has

always been Greek. The fact that part of its population speaks a second

language, which is in essence Bulgarian mingled with Slavonic, Greek,

Vlach and Albanian, is not proof of Slav or Bulgarian descent. The

Socialist Republic of Macedonia aimed at the creation of a Slav

Macedonian state so as to gain access to the Aegean Sea. To this effect

it attempted to win over the Greek inhabitants of Greek Macedonia who

speak the above-mentioned second language. Acting in compliance with

a directive issued by Slav organisations abroad the applicants

established the "Home of Macedonian Civilisation" to further this goal.

21. The court further relied on reports, which had appeared in the

Ethnos newspaper on 5 February 1991 and in the Ellinikos Vorras

newspaper on 12 May 1991, according to which two of the applicants took

part in a meeting of the Conference for the Security and Cooperation

in Europe in Copenhagen where they disputed the fact that Greek

Macedonia was Greek, making a distinction between Greeks and

Macedonians.

22. The court considered that the latter fact together with the name

of the association and the contents of its charter rendered its aims

dubious. There existed a danger that the association would be used to

trap young persons in the non-existent Slav-Macedonian minority, since

Article 3 para. 2 of the charter provided that the youth of Florina

would become members of the youth section of the association. Moreover,

the court considered it suspicious that, although Article 4 of the

charter provided that all members should accept the principles of the

association, no mention of these principles was ever made in the

charter. The title of the association itself could create confusion,

because initially it created the impression that it referred to the

Greek civilisation of Macedonia, while in reality it referred to a Slav

civilisation, which, however, did not exist in the area. In the light

of all the above, the court concluded that the applicants used the word

"Macedonian" to contest the Greek identity of Macedonia and its

inhabitants. The court was satisfied that the objective of the

applicants was to undermine the territorial integrity of Greece and

upheld the decision of the lower court, notwithstanding the fact that

the latter was based on "a shorter and partially different reasoning".

23. On 20 June 1991 the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation

(Arios Pagos) relying, inter alia, on Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the

Greek Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Convention.

They submitted that, contrary to the law, the court of appeal (a) did

not limit itself to reviewing the lawfulness of the establishment of

the association but exercised a much wider review as to the expediency

of its establishment based on the presumed intentions of its founders,

(b) took into consideration matters that had not been submitted by the

parties, (c) took into consideration matters of essential importance

without ordering the taking of evidence, (d) distorted the content of

the association's charter, and (e) did not provide sufficient reasons

for its decision.

24. In a memorial submitted to the Court of Cassation on the occasion

of the hearing the applicants specified that it was the decision of the

court of appeal which violated their rights under Articles 2, 4, 5

and 12 of the Greek Constitution and the corresponding provisions of

the Convention. They further submitted that, by taking into

consideration matters of essential importance without ordering the

taking of evidence, the court of appeal violated the applicants' right

to a fair trial.

25. In a judgment delivered on 16 May 1994, the Court of Cassation

considered that the first, second, third and fourth grounds of appeal

were unsubstantiated. In any event, it considered that the lower court

could take into consideration matters which had not been submitted by

the parties and that the "matters of material importance" referred to

were either matters of public knowledge or proved on the basis of

documents, namely the press reports mentioned in the decision. The

Court of Cassation further considered that the decision of the court

of appeal was adequately reasoned. It also noted that the applicants

had not alleged that the decision of the court of appeal violated

Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Constitution. In the applicants'

submission, it was the decision of the first instance court which had

failed to respect the above-mentioned provisions. However, even if the

aim of the applicants had been to attack the constitutionality of the

decision of the court of appeal, this ground of appeal would have had

to be rejected as unsubstantiated. On the basis of all the above, the

Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' appeal in cassation.

B. Relevant domestic law

26. Article 4 para. 1 of the Constitution provides the following:

"All Greeks are equal before the law."

27. Article 12 para. 1 of the Constitution provides the following:

"Greeks have the right to form non-profit associations and

unions, in compliance with the law, which, however, may

never subject the exercise of this right to prior

permission."

28. The Civil Code provides in respect of non-profit making

associations the following:

Article 78

"An association of at least twenty persons with a non-

profit making aim acquires legal personality upon

registration in a special book kept by the competent first

instance civil court."

Article 79

"The founders of the association or its administration

apply to the competent first instance civil court to have

the association registered in the special book. The

application must be accompanied by the act establishing the

association, a list of the names of its administration and

its charter which must be dated and signed by its members."

Article 80

"The charter of the association must specify the following:

(a) the aim, name and seat of the association, (b) the

conditions of admission, withdrawal and expulsion of the

members and their rights and obligations ... Otherwise it

is not valid."

Article 81

"The first instance civil court accepts the application if

it is satisfied that all the conditions set by the law are

met ..."

Article 105

"The first instance civil court orders the dissolution of

the association ... (c) if the association pursues other

aims than those specified in its charter, or if the aim or

the functioning of the association has become illegal,

immoral or against the public order."

29. The Code of Civil Procedure provides the following in respect of

the special procedure (ekusia dikeodosia) according to which courts

examine, inter alia, applications for the registration of associations:

Article 744

"The court may proprio motu order any measures which could

lead to the establishment of relevant facts, even if the

latter have not been the subject matter of the parties'

submissions ..."

Article 759 para. 3

"Notwithstanding the legal rules concerning proof, the

court may order proprio motu whatever it considers

necessary for the establishment of the facts."

30. Moreover, Article 336 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure

provides the following in respect of all proceedings before the civil

courts:

"The court may take into consideration, proprio motu and

without taking evidence, facts which are so generally known

that there can be no reasonable doubt as to their truth."

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

31. The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaints

that their application to establish an association was not examined in

a fair manner by the courts, that the refusal of the application in

question amounted to an unjustified interference with their rights to

freedom of conscience, expression and association, and that they were

discriminated against in the enjoyment of the above-mentioned rights

because of their ethnic origin, their association with a national

minority and their beliefs and national conscience.

B. Points at issue

32. The issues to be determined are the following:

- whether there has been a violation of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the

Convention,

- whether there has been a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention,

- whether there has been a violation of Articles 9 and 10

(Art. 9, 10) of the Convention and

- whether there has been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention taken in conjunction with the above-mentioned

provisions.

C. As regards Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention

33. Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,

provides as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and

to freedom of association with others, including the right to

form and to join trade unions for the protection of his

interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these

rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary

in a democratic society in the interests of national security or

public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

protection of health or morals or for the protection of the

rights and freedoms of others. ..."

34. The applicants submit that they were prohibited from establishing

a cultural association. They argue that the interference with their

right to freedom of association was not provided by law. They contend

that, under Greek law and in particular Article 12 (Art. 12) of the

Constitution, the domestic courts should have limited their review to

ascertaining that the conditions set forth in Articles 78-80 of the

Civil Code were fulfilled and that the stated aims of the association

were not illegal, or against morality or public order. They could not

engage in speculation as to the real aims of the association. Nor could

they decide on the expediency of its establishment on the basis of the

presumed intentions of its founders.

35. The applicants further submit that, according to the case-law of

the Greek courts, a judge, when applying the special procedure for

examining applications for the registration of associations, may order

proprio motu whatever measures he considers necessary for the

establishment of the truth. He cannot, however, rely on documents or

evidence which have not been officially submitted to the court or on

his private knowledge. Moreover, he cannot consider that certain

material facts have been established without ordering, even proprio

motu, the taking of evidence. It cannot be considered that the

propositions on which the national courts based their decisions in the

case were "common knowledge". Part of the information invoked was

derived from certain racist newspapers. The reasoning in the courts'

decisions is limited to a historical analysis and certain unfounded

disparaging remarks for the applicants. No attempt was made by the

courts to link the above in a reasoned manner with the charter of the

association and the rejection of the request for its registration. The

Court of Cassation, in upholding these decisions, violated national

law.

36. The applicants also affirm that their association had no links

with "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and stress that it was

set up long before the declaration of independence of that country. In

any event, a court cannot base its decision on a particular

interpretation of certain historical events which it considers to be

established facts without ordering the taking of evidence.

37. The applicants further contend that the aims of their association

were lawful. They involved the study of the local culture of the area

of Florina, in which, as it is well-known, a distinct linguistic,

cultural and historic group of people, to which the applicants belong,

lives. The study of the local culture is protected by the Constitution,

the Convention, other international human rights instruments and the

agreements of the Organisation for the Security and Cooperation in

Europe in which Greece participates. In accordance with these

agreements, every person has the right to consider that he belongs to

a particular group.

38. As regards the necessity of the interference with their right to

freedom of association, the applicants submit that, if the aims of the

association turned out to be unlawful or against morality or public

order, the State could protect itself using the means provided by

national law. The courts could order the dissolution of the association

under Article 105 of the Civil Code. It follows that the interference

with their right to freedom of association was not necessary in a

democratic society.

39. The Government contend that the interference with the applicants'

right to freedom of association was justified under para. 2 of that

provision. They submit that the national courts had the power under

Greek law to examine whether the aims of the association were unlawful

or against public order. The Court of Cassation interpreted the

relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure correctly when it

rejected the applicants' appeal in cassation. The domestic courts had

the power to take into consideration certain incontrovertible facts and

in particular the threat which certain recent acts of "the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" posed for the national integrity and

the cultural heritage of Greece. They also had the power to take into

consideration certain publications in the Greek and Yugoslav press

concerning the applicants.

40. The Government argue that it is clear from the applicants'

submissions before the Commission that their real aim was to establish

an association on behalf of the minority of the Slavs of Skopje in

order to protect the cultural traditions of Skopje, which are in

reality of Bulgarian and Yugoslav origin. The Government affirm that

such a minority and such cultural traditions do not exist in Greece.

It transpires, however, from the applicants' submissions before the

Commission that the real aims of the association were different from

those mentioned in its charter. In any event, the domestic courts have

exclusive competence to establish that the real aim of the association

is different from the aim mentioned in its charter, provided that the

courts do not act in a discriminatory manner.

41. The Government argue, in the alternative, that the domestic

courts were correct in concluding that the intention of the applicants

was to assist various Slav associations operating outside Greece in

their attempt to undermine the territorial integrity of Greece. The

domestic courts have found that the case concerned the national

security of Greece. It follows that they have exclusive competence in

the matter. In any event, the courts heard the applicants and it was

lawful under domestic law not to order the taking of evidence. The

judges did not review the expediency of the establishment of the

association, but did their duty to protect the existence of their

country.

42. The Government conclude that the interference with the

applicants' right to freedom of association was necessary in a

democratic society to protect national security, public order and the

rights and freedoms of the Greek people in its entirety. The Greek

people has the right to protect Macedonia which belongs to it

historically and culturally and lies within its territory and which the

Slavs of Skopje want to appropriate for themselves.

43. The Commission must first examine whether there has been an

interference with the applicants' right to freedom of association. The

Commission recalls in this connection that, in accordance with its

case-law, a refusal of the authorities to register an association does

not necessarily involve an interference with the right of its members

under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention where the association is

nevertheless free to continue its activities (No. 14233/88,

Dec. 5.6.91, D.R. 70 p. 218; No. 18874/91, Dec. 12.1.94, D.R. 76 p. 44;

and No. 27608/95, Dec. 29.11.95, unpublished).

44. The Commission notes that the applicants argue that the courts'

refusal of registration meant that they were effectively prohibited

from establishing such an association. Moreover, the Government have

not contested that the courts' decisions in this matter constituted an

interference with the applicants' right under Article 11 (Art. 11) of

the Convention. The Commission considers that the parties' failure to

dispute the issue cannot be disassociated from the particular context

of the case involving an association which, in the words of the

Government, the judges had a duty not to register in order "to protect

the existence of their country". In the light of the above, the

Commission considers that the courts' refusal of registration

constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of

association under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.

45. The Commission considers that such an interference is contrary

to Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention unless it is "prescribed by

law", directed at one or more of the legitimate aims set out in

paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" for achieving

them.

46. The Commission notes that the parties are in disagreement on

whether the extent of the control exercised by the courts over the aims

of the association was in accordance with domestic law. However, it

does not consider it necessary to rule on the question whether the

interference in issue was "prescribed by law" in this instance because,

in any event, it was incompatible with Article 11 (Art. 11) of the

Convention on other grounds (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR,

Manoussakis and others v. Greece judgment of 26 September 1996, to be

published in the Reports of Judgments and Decisions).

47. The Commission also notes that the domestic courts refused to

register the association because they considered that its real aim was

to question the Greek character of the Greek province of Macedonia with

a view to undermining the territorial integrity of Greece. The

Commission considers that it follows that the interference was directed

at the protection of national security and public safety and the

prevention of disorder, all of which are legitimate aims set out in

paragraph 2 of Article 11 (Art. 11-2) of the Convention.

48. Concerning the issue whether the interference was "necessary in

a democratic society", the Commission recalls that, in accordance with

its case-law, freedom of association, as enshrined in Article 11

(Art. 11) of the Convention, constitutes one of the essential

foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for

its progress (TBKP, Sargin and Yagci v. Turkey, Comm. Report 3.9.96,

para. 76, unpublished). It follows that the exceptions to freedom of

association under the second paragraph of Article 11 (Art. 11) must be

narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be

convincingly established, as in the case of freedom of expression which

also constitutes an essential foundation of a democratic society (see

Eur. Court HR, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2) judgment of

26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, p. 29, para. 50).

49. The Commission also recalls that the adjective "necessary",

within the meaning of Article 11 para. 2 (Art. 11-2) of the Convention,

implies the existence of a "pressing social need" (see Sargin and Yagci

v. Turkey, Comm. Report, loc. cit., referring to Eur. Court HR, Lingens

v. Austria of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 25, para. 39, and

Handyside v. United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A

no. 24, p. 23, para. 49). The Contracting States have a certain margin

of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists and, where

matters of national security are concerned, this margin is wide (see

Eur. Court HR, Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A

no. 116, p. 25, para. 59). However, the States' margin of appreciation

always goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both

the law and the decisions applying it, including those given by

independent courts. Even in matters of national security, it remains

ultimately for the Government to satisfy the Commission that an

interference is reconcilable with freedom of association as protected

by Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention. It follows that the

Commission cannot accept the Government's argument that, because the

case concerned the national security of Greece, the domestic courts had

exclusive competence in the matter.

50. The Commission must exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and,

in doing so, it will look at the interference complained of in the

light of the case as a whole in order to determine whether it was

"proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued" and whether the reasons

adduced by the domestic authorities to justify it are "relevant and

sufficient". Moreover, the Commission has to satisfy itself that the

national authorities based themselves on an acceptable assessment of

the relevant facts (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Jersild v.

Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, pp. 23 and 24,

para. 31).

51. The Commission notes in this connection that the aims of the

applicants' association, as stated in its charter, were lawful.

Moreover, it considers that nothing in the charter could justify a

different conclusion. However, inquiring into the real aims of the

association is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, since

it cannot be excluded that the establishment of an association may

raise serious public order questions. As a result, the Commission

cannot agree with the applicants who argue that the competence of the

courts in this matter should have been limited to establishing the

lawfulness of the aims of the association as stated in its charter. Nor

can the Commission agree with the Government who argue that the

domestic courts had exclusive competence to establish that the real

aims of the association were different from the aims mentioned in its

charter, provided that they did not act in a discriminatory manner.

Accepting such a proposition would have amounted to the Commission

effectively relinquishing its supervisory jurisdiction.

52. As a result, the Commission must examine the courts' decisions

in depth to identify the factual considerations on which they based the

conclusion that the applicants' real aim in setting up the association

was to question the Greek character of the Greek province of Macedonia

with a view to undermining the territorial integrity of Greece. The

Commission's examination will focus on the reasoning of the

Thessaloniki Court of Appeal, which replaced the reasoning of the First

Instance Civil Court of Florina and which was upheld by the Court of

Cassation (see paras. 22 and 25).

53. The Commission notes that, in order to reach this conclusion, the

domestic courts invoked two elements, the first of which was the

existence of a directive issued by Slav organisations abroad. The

applicants argue that this directive did not form part of the case-file

in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Government have

not disputed this. However, the Government have produced before the

Commission a press report to which the domestic courts made reference

and which contains an extract from the relevant directive. According

to this extract, the aim of the association was "in a lawful manner to

question the denial of the rights of the Macedonians by the

Greek State".

54. Secondly, the domestic courts relied on press reports on the

presence of two of the applicants at a meeting of the Conference for

the Security and Cooperation in Europe in Copenhagen where, in the

words of the appeal court, "they disputed that Greek Macedonia was

Greek, making a distinction between Greeks and Macedonians". The

Commission has had the benefit of examining these reports, which were

produced by the Government before it. It emerges that at the above-

mentioned meeting the applicants declared that they were "citizens of

Greece, albeit of a Macedonian ethnic origin, and denounced that the

Greek State oppressed the Macedonians of the Aegean Macedonia depriving

them of all their human rights".

55. The Commission, having examined the evidence which had been

placed before the domestic courts, considers that it has not been

established that the applicants harboured separatist intentions. It is

not, therefore, necessary to decide whether this would have justified

an interference with the right to freedom of association.

56. It is true that the domestic courts, on the basis of the evidence

before them, could have reached the reasonable conclusion that the real

aim of the association was to promote the idea that a "Macedonian"

minority exists in Greece and that the rights of the members of such

a minority are not fully respected. However, the Commission considers

that this could not have justified in itself a restriction in the

applicants' right to freedom of association. According to the case-law

of the Court, a democratic society must, in principle, tolerate the

free discussion not only of ideas which are favourably received or are

regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also of

ideas that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the

population (Eur. Court HR, Handyside v. United Kingdom judgment of

29 April 1976, Series A no. 24, para. 49, p. 23). The Commission,

applying this principle, has considered that imposing a prison sentence

on a person who, in the context of an election campaign, used the term

"Turk" in respect of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace could not

be regarded as a "necessary" measure in the democratic society

(Sadik Ahmet v. Greece, Comm. Report 4.4.95, para. 53, to be published

in Eur. Court HR, Reports 1996-I). In the particular circumstances of

the case, the Commission notes that, although the applicants have

stated that they have "a Macedonian national conscience", there is no

indication that they have advocated the use of violence or of

undemocratic or unconstitutional means (see, mutatis mutandis, TBKP,

Sargin and Yagci v. Turkey, Comm. Report, op. cit., para. 82).

57. Moreover, the Commission considers that the domestic courts could

have sought to clarify the question of the real aims of the applicants

by ordering proprio motu the taking of further evidence into the

matter, as they had the power to do under domestic law.

58. However, what the Commission considers of primary importance is

that domestic law put at the disposal of the courts effective means

which would have enabled them to ensure that the applicants'

association, once established, would not have engaged in illegal

activities. Under Article 105 of the Civil Code, the courts may order

the dissolution of an association if the aim or functioning of the

association has become illegal, immoral or against the public order

(see para. 28).

59. In the light of all the above and the domestic margin of

appreciation notwithstanding, the Commission is not satisfied that the

reasons adduced by the domestic authorities to justify the interference

with the applicants' freedom of association were "relevant and

sufficient"; nor was the interference "proportionate to the legitimate

aim pursued". It follows that it has not been established that the

measure complained of was "necessary in a democratic society in the

interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of

disorder ... or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of

others".

CONCLUSION

60. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

there has been a violation of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.

D. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

61. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as

relevant, provides as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an ...

impartial tribunal..."

62. The applicants argue that their case was not heard by impartial

tribunals. They submit that the courts were hostile towards them

because of their ethnic origin and national conscience. In

substantiation of their claim, they rely on passages of the decisions

where the courts assert that the Slav-Macedonian minority is non-

existent and conclude that the applicants acted against the interests

of Greece to further the aims of a foreign power. The applicants also

submit that they did not have a fair hearing because, contrary to the

law, the courts did not limit themselves to reviewing the lawfulness

of the establishment of the association but exercised a much wider

review as to the expediency of its establishment based on the presumed

intentions of its founders. The courts also took into consideration

matters that had not been submitted by the parties as well as things

of material importance without ordering the taking of evidence.

63. The Government submit that the courts were impartial, that the

applicants were heard and that national law was correctly applied.

64. The Commission does not consider it necessary to examine whether

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention applies in the

proceedings in question. The Commission recalls that, when examining

the applicants' complaints under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the

Convention, it had to pronounce on whether it was justifiable for the

domestic courts to reach certain conclusions on the basis of the

material before them without ordering further evidence. Since the

Commission has found that Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention has

been violated on the basis, inter alia, that the domestic courts should

not have reached these conclusions, it considers that it is not

necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article

6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

CONCLUSION

65. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

E. As regards Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention

66. These articles, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:

Article 9 (Art. 9)

"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 in 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."

Article 10 (Art. 10)

"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. ...

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."

67. The applicants submit that the refusal of the courts to register

the association was not related to the aims of the association. It

follows that this was a sanction imposed on them because of their

publicly expressed beliefs.

68. The Government submit that the court decisions in question do not

prohibit the applicants from assuming that they are not of Greek ethnic

origin. They also argue that any interference with the applicants'

rights was necessary in a democratic society to protect national

security, public order and the rights and freedoms of the Greek people

in its entirety.

69. The Commission considers that, insofar as the establishment of

associations is concerned, Article 11 (Art. 11) is the lex specialis

in relation to Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention (see,

mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Ezelin v. France judgment of

26 April 1991, Series a no. 202, p. 20, para. 35; and TBKP, Sargin and

Yagci v. Turkey, Comm. Report, op. cit., para. 88). It follows that a

separate examination of the facts of the case under Articles 9 and 10

(Art. 9, 10) of the Convention is not called for.

CONCLUSION

70. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

no separate issue arises under Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the

Convention.

F. As regards Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

71. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides as follows:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this

Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other

opinion, national or social origin, association with a national

minority, property, birth or other status."

72. The applicants submit that they were denied the enjoyment of

their Convention rights because of their ethnic origin, their

association with a national minority and their beliefs and national

conscience.

73. The Government submit that the refusal of the courts to register

the association was not an act of discrimination against the applicants

because of their ethnic origin and beliefs. The association was found

to pursue different aims from those stated and its real aims were

against public order.

74. The Commission, having regard to its conclusion concerning

Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention, does not consider it necessary

to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 14

(Art. 14) of the Convention.

CONCLUSION

75. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

G. Recapitulation

76. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

there has been a violation of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention

(see para. 60).

77. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (see para. 65).

78. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

no separate issue arises under Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the

Convention (see para. 70).

79. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention (see para. 75).

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

APPENDIX II

DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THESSALONIKI OF 8 MAY 1991

I. The appellants, whose application to the Multi-Member First

Instance Civil Court of Florina on 12 June 1990 was already an appeal

against an earlier decision, applied for registration, in the special

book kept by that court, of an association which they and others had

founded together under the name "Home of Macedonian Civilisation". The

grounds of the application were refused as unsubstantiated with final

decision no. 73/296/26/1990 of the above-mentioned court, which tried

the case under the relevant special procedure (articles 740 and 787 of

the Code of Civil Procedure). The applicants are pleading against this

decision with their present appeal. The appeal was made legally and

within the fixed term and has to be accepted on formal grounds and

investigated in its substance.

II. Paris Stefanou Niflis, lawyer, resident of Thessaloniki, made an

oral statement which was entered on the case report, and submitted

statements following the discussion of the case before the public

audience, claiming that he was intervening as a third party and

pleading not for the admission but for the rejection of the appeal

which was being tried. Such a petition means that the intervention

against the relevant special procedure does not qualify as an

additional intervention, and could only be upheld if it was made by

means of a separate legal process, according to article 752 paragraph

I of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Athens Court of Appeal 2184/1987,

Armenopoulos 41, 953 and notes by Har. Apalagakis). The intervention

therefore has to be rejected as unacceptable.

III. In investigating the grounds of an application being tried under

the special procedure, as in the present case, and in view of the

strong public interest involved in this procedure, the court may and

indeed is obliged to take into consideration, proprio motu, matters

beyond what is submitted to the court by the parties -in particular

real events and situations contained in publications (books,

magazines, newspapers etc.) which are accessible to any interested

person- and this notwithstanding the ordinary rules concerning the

burden of proof. On the basis of the below well-known facts, whose

validity the Court does not doubt, the Court admits the following in

relation to the case: ancient (classical) Macedonia is defined to the

south by the Aegean Sea and Mounts Kamvounia, Pieria and Olympus; to

the north by Lake Ohrid, the Prespa lakes, and Mounts Babouna-Skomion

(Rila Planina) and Rodopi; to the east by the river Nestos; and to the

west by Mounts Grammos and Pindus (see: Ekdotiki Athinon, Makedonia,

pp.10ff.; Ap. Vakalopulos, Synchrona Valkanika Ethnologika Provlimata,

p.II; G. Mintsis, Istoria tou Makedonikou Zetematos, p. 29). Its

inhabitants (the Macedonians) were one of the most ancient Greek

tribes, closely related to the Thessalians, who were also of Eolian

origin, and especially to the Magnesians. Their language was one of the

oldest Greek idioms, akin to Eolian and Arcado-Cyprian, but also to the

Mycenean dialect. Their religion was that common to the Greeks and

their myths and traditions were similar to those present elsewhere in

the Greek world (See H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, trans. by

K. Yeroyannis under the title Pankosmios Istoria, Pergaminai, chapter

B'I, p.439 and chapter I', p.367; Will Durant, Pankosmios Istoria tou

Politismou, ed. Ap. Daskalakis, 1965, p. 483V; Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,

Maties stin Pankosmia Istoria, trans. P. Drakou, Faros, 1954, p.25; Ap.

Vakalopulos, op. cit., pp.14ff; M. Sakellariou, I taftotita ton

Makedonon, communication to the Academy of Athens on 8 November 1988;

K. Vavuskou, correction of the draft for the article "Macedonia" for

the new Australian encyclopædia Australian People, speech to the

special meeting of the Academy of Athens on 7 March 1989; N. Andriotis:

The Language and the Greek Origin of the Ancient Macedonians,

Thessaloniki 1978). The Macedonian kings Phillip II and Alexander the

Great acted not just as Greeks but as pan-Hellenists, in the sense that

they incarnated the old idea of the creation of a unified Greek State

by bringing together the smaller Greek territories; they were bearers,

and the latter was a disseminator, not of an underaccomplished

Macedonian civilisation, but of Greek civilisation (see Johann Gustav

Droysen, Istoria tou Megalou Alexandrou, trans., comments, etc. by

Renos Apostolidis, 1988, pp.1-9, 28ff; Ekdotiki Athinon, Istoria tou

Ellinikou Ethnous, vol. D, pp.10ff). And in later years especially

after the appearance in the Balkans of the Bulgars and Slavs (6th-7th

cent. A.D.) the Macedonian region as it was defined above was a

stronghold and a bastion of Hellenism just as it had been in ancient

times. Polybius describes Macedonia as a 'shield' and bestows honours

on the Macedonians because they fought the barbarians (non-Greeks) to

ensure the safety of the (other) Greeks (Polybius, Historae, Leipzig

edition, 1898, vol. 3, book 9, p.35). For the byzantine period the same

thing is affirmed by French historian Paul Lemerle in his classic work

Philippe et la Macédoine Orientale, Paris, 1945, pp.516-517. In

addition, in a guide to Thessaloniki written by German historians and

archaeologists during the last world war it is stated that "the

sweeping migrations of peoples which frequently inundated the Balkan

peninsula disintegrated on this most powerful bastion of Hellenism"

(see A. Vakalopoulos, op. cit., pp.17ff.). Nowhere in either the recent

or the distant past are Macedonia and the Macedonians mentioned in any

official document as a specific ethnic grouping. The Treaty of Berlin,

and the Treaty of San Stefano which it replaced, ignore such notions.

In the official Turkish census of 1905 there is mention of Greeks and

of Bulgarians, or inhabitants whose identity was partly Bulgarian, in

the vilayets of Thessaloniki and Monastiri, where there was a Greek

ethnic majority; but no mention of Macedonians, since nobody declared

such descent (A. Vakalopoulos op. cit., pp.84ff.; G. Russos, Neoteri

Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous, vol. 5, pp.83ff, which includes a

reproduction of the census tables). In his work Voyage dans la

Macédoine (Paris, 1831) E.M. Cousinery, the French Consul in

Thessaloniki, says that the Bulgarians (as all speakers of Slavic were

then called) never penetrated the woodlands below Vermio, where the

population remained Greek (see vol.1, pp.67-68 and vol.2, p.140). With

reference to the same area German geographer Leonard D. Schultze

observes that in their language, traditions, cultural affinity, ethnic

preference and religion, its inhabitants are as legitimately and

authentically Greek as their brothers further to the south (Macedonien

Landschafts und Kulturbilder, Iena, 1927, p.106). In this he reiterates

the formulation of Lord Salisbury, Great Britain's representative at

the Berlin Congress on 19 June 1878, when he said that "Macedonia and

Thrace are just as Greek as Crete" (K. Vavuskos, op. cit., p.84). The

fact that a small part of this region's population also speaks a

language which is basically a form of Bulgarian with admixtures of

Slavic, Greek, Vlach and Albanian words, does not prove that this

minority is of Slavic or Bulgarian origin; in isolation this criterion

is of no value whatsoever, as is borne out by the experience in the

recent past of the forced migration from Asia Minor to Greece of

populations which were undisputably Greek but totally ignorant of the

Greek language. It is indicative that among the fighters of the

Macedonian Campaign (1904-1908) there were men who spoke the

Bulgarian-Slav idiom but who had a purely Greek national conscience;

for example Kotas, Dalipis, Kyrou, Gonos and others. In his Short

History of the Bulgarian, Serb and Romanian Orthodox Churches (Moscow

1871), the Russian historian E. Golubinstii wrote of these non

Greek-speaking Greeks that they bore implacable hatred and scorn

towards all Slavs and Bulgarians (see K. Vavuskos, op. cit., pp.85ff.).

After the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, 51,57% of the region corresponding

to ancient Macedonia was under Greek domination, 38,32% under Yugoslav

domination, and 10,11% under Bulgarian domination (see Ekdotiki

Athinon, Makedonia, p.504, which includes a map). In this way a

territorial status came into being. There were exchanges of population,

either voluntary or following bilateral agreements such as the

Kafantari-Molov agreement between Greece and Bulgaria in 1926; and

Greeks from Turkey populated the Greek part of Macedonia, so that only

Greeks remained in this part of Macedonia, even if some of them were

biligual. Therefore Greek Macedonia became a completely homogeneous

part of the Greek territory (see K. Vavuskos, op. cit., p.92; and Ap.

Vakalopulos op. cit. p;31, who refers to the work of the German Stephan

Ronart, Griechenland von Heute). This was especially true in the period

immediately following World War II (1945-1949), when almost all the

bilingual inhabitants of this region who did not have a Greek national

conscience emigrated to neighbouring countries (see E. Kofos,

Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia, Thessaloniki, 1964, pp.185ff.).

There they experienced a mutation of their partly Greek or partly

Bulgarian nationality into a "Macedonian", ie into a Slav-Macedonian,

nationality (see E. Kofos in "Yugoslavia today", Athens 1990, p. 50;

Kentron Apodimu Ellinismou, Makedonia, Istoria kai Politismos, Ekdotiki

Athinon, 1989, pp.29ff.). This situation was preceded by certain

violent events, such as the Ilinden revolt, when the Bulgarians claim

to have revolted against the Turks on 2 August 1903 at Krusovo, a town

near Monastiri whose ethnic composition was overwhelmingly Greek. In

fact they turned against the town's Greek inhabitants, whom they tried

to wipe out with the cooperation of the Turks and without causing the

rest of the population any significant harm (see K. Vavuskos, op. cit.,

p.89; Douglas Dakin, The Greek struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913,

Thessaloniki 1966, pp.92ff.; Douglas Dakin, E.K. Mazarakis-Ainianos,

E. Kofou, I. Diamanturou, O Makedonikos Agonas, Athens 1985, pp.30ff.;

G. Mintsis, op. cit., pp53ff.). Until the year 1914 "Macedonia" as a

Slavic state and "Macedonian Nation" as a specific nation were unheard

of. The part of Macedonia which fell under Jugoslav domination, like

that which fell to Bulgaria, constitutes a narrow strip of land along

the Greek border and represents only a small part of Serbia. Skopje,

which today is the capital of the misleadingly named Socialist Republic

of Macedonia of the Federal Yugoslav State, lies far from Macedonia.

The S.R.M. was founded under the German occupation (see E. Kofos, The

Impact of the Macedonian Question on Civil Conflict in Greece

1943-1948, Athens, 1989). Its foundation was part of a conscious

strategy according to which when the regions of Skopje and Tetovo

(which belonged to ancient Dardania, a non-Macedonian country) were

ceded, a Serb population could be said to exist in the sparsely

populated part of Macedonia which lies beyond the Greek borders and

which contained Serbs, Greeks, Greek Vlachs, Muslims with partly

Turkish identity, and Bulgarians; a Slav-speaking population with a

specific linguistic idiom and an unstable national conscience (see

Vakalopulos, op. cit., pp.12ff.; N. Andriotis, The Confederate State

of Skopje and its language, Athens, 1957; also contains relevant

bibliography). The long-term purpose of the founding of the S.R.M. was

to re-establish a Macedonian state of a Slavic nature with access to

the Aegean Sea. One of the means to this end is the enlisting by

various means of bilingual Greeks from Greek Macedonia. The setting up

of an association in Florina with the name "Home of Macedonian

Civilisation" is part of this effort and applies a directive issued by

Slavic organizations abroad. The aim is to create a Macedonian Question

with international ramifications (see statements by Serb politicians

to the newspaper Borba, 8 November 1990, and to Nin magazine, 1

February 1991). The parties applying for recognition of the above

association are the enablers in this operation. Among them are Hristos

Sidiropoulos and Stavros Anastasiadis, who appeared at an international

conference to dispute the Greekness of (Greek) Macedonia; the former

in particular by distinguishing between Macedonians and Greeks (see the

newspaper Makedonikos Vorras, 17 March 1991, which includes photographs

of the above persons among 16 members of the "Macedonian"

representation at the CSCE in Copenhagen; and the newspaper Ethnos,

5 February 1991, p.10). This, in combination with the name of the

proposed association and with the whole content of its charter, renders

at least dubious the association's aims, which according to the

founding members' seemingly lawful statement in article 2 of the

charter, consist in the cultural, intellectual and artistic advancement

of its members, in cultural decentralisation, etc. This judgment is

supported by the content of article 3 paragraph 2 of the same charter,

which states that all youths in the Florina area will be enrolled in

the proposed association's Youth Section. It is clear from this that

there is a danger that the immaturity of young people will be

exploited and that youths will be trapped by suitable propaganda into

an ethnologically non-existent and historically evacuated

Slav-Macedonian minority. Article 4 of the same charter puts down the

condition that enrolment of a member in the association is subject to

that member's written acceptance of the principles of the association.

However nowhere in the association's charter are these principles

defined. Thus the charter does not provide a clear idea of who will

enrol, since the clear determination of the principles governing the

proposed association is deliberately avoided. Finally the very name of

the association can be a source of confusion, because on initial

consideration it creates the impression that it refers to Macedonia's

Greek civilisation, whereas in reality it envisages a specifically

Slavic civilisation which does not exist in the region in question.

Generally this Court has sound reasons to be convinced by the above

that the objective of the use of the word "Macedonian" is to contest

the Greek identity of Macedonia and its inhabitants by indirect and

therefore underhand means, and discerns an intention in the founders

to break up Greece's territorial integrity. Therefore the refusal

presently under appeal of the application in question was justified,

notwithstanding the fact that it was based on a shorter and partially

different reasoning; and the opposing arguments as they stand in the

present appeal have to be rejected.

For these reasons, the Court, having examined both the appeal and the

intervention, rejects the intervention as unacceptable. It formally

admits the appeal and rejects it in substance.

EXTRACTS FROM PRESS REPORTS RELIED ON BY THE DOMESTIC COURTS

1. Report appearing in the newspaper "Ethnos" on 5 February 1991

Skopje: Skopje has made use of three Greeks -one of them a public

employee- who made allegations of repression against the Greek

Government to a representative of the American Embassy visiting

villages in Florina.

The three testified against Greece at a meeting of the Conference

for Security and Cooperation in Europe which was held in Denmark on 15

June 1990. According to the American Macedonian Association the men in

question are Hristos Stergiu Sidiropulos, Constantinos Gotsis, and

Stavros Anastasiadis.

Sidiropulos is a forestry official on the payroll of the Greek

State. These and other Greeks belonging to an association called "Home

of Macedonian Civilisation" are under the guidance of Vasil

Tuvorkovsky, a member of the central committee of Yugoslavia's

Presidential Council and a frequent visitor to Greece, where he stays

in a mobile home in Halkidiki.

2. Report appearing in the newspaper "Ellinikos Vorras" on

17 March 1991

First title: Skopje's trojan horse in Thessaloniki's Court of

Appeal tomorrow - Expulsion of ringleader S. Todorovsky - Decisive

documents

Second title: Leader of secret organization is a public servant

- Spectre of "Aegean Macedonians" - How the international plot against

Greece was set up; who will be promoting it tomorrow - Tomorrow's

appeal hearing in Thessaloniki carries out a directive issued in 1989.

Radin, Popov, Skopje and "Consul" Todorovsky are directing the local

leader. - Application is a trap aimed at vilifying Greece in the

International Court.

As dramatic developments in a rapidly dissolving Yugoslavia and

in the broader Balkan region unfold into something resembling a

thriller, with the emergence of a 'new order' in the Balkans whose

targets include Greek Macedonia and Thrace, the leader of a secret

organization called "Macedonians of the Aegean", Hristos Sidiropulos,

also a full-time employee of the Greek State, will be trying in

Thessaloniki tomorrow to embroil Greece in a satanic plot organized

abroad by Skopje and the independence movements it operates in

Australia. This accounts for the announcement of the expulsion of the

Jugoslav consul in Thessaloniki, Sasko Todorovski, just 72 hours before

tomorrow's hearing. Todorovski's cover was blown when on February 17

Ellinikos Vorras revealed that he was the leader of a triangular

structure opposed to Greek Macedonia and comprising the American

viceconsul Colonel Donald Miller as well as the educational adviser of

the American embassy in Athens, John Kiesling.

It is also known that Donald Miller left Thessaloniki "overnight"

for the United States when Ellinikos Vorras exposed his dark

'triangular' role in the State Department's contemptible report.

Todorovski is an organ of the Yugoslav secret service and used agents

to lead an operation of international destabilization in Greek

Macedonia.

One stage of this operation of destabilization unfolds tomorrow

in Thessaloniki. The city's Court of Appeal will deliberate on the

application for approval, by 17 inhabitants of the prefecture of

Florina, of their charter for the establishment of an association

called "Home of Macedonian Civilisation". The charter is formulated

with expert care so as to provide full and international legal cover

for a well-planned destabilization of the country; the legal wrapping

of a Trojan horse at Greece's borders. The application in question was

refused by the lower court in Florina, where an earlier less veiled

version drawn up by the same persons had also been refused. The new

application at the Court of Appeal in Thessaloniki tomorrow will be

discussed as 'a common and straightforward case'.

However combined evidence and information from Slavic sources

reveals that:

a. The leaders of the 17, most of whom were ensnared by what seemed

an innocent 'cultural' project, are Hristos Sidiropulos from Amindaio,

a forester with the Department of Agriculture, and Stavros

Anastasiadis, a wealthy businessman from Meliti in the prefecture of

Florina, both of whom sign the application. The two also appeared last

June at a meeting of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in

Europe (CSCE) held in Copenhagen on the subject of human rights,

declaring that they were Greek citizens but Macedonian nationals, and

denounced the Greek State for "oppressing" the "Macedonians" of "Aegean

Macedonia" and "depriving" them of all human rights. In fact according

to the newspaper run by the emigrant independence movement in

Australia, "Australian Macedonian" (1/8/1990), the two men carried

letters containing similar allegations from Petros Dimtsis of Kato

Klines, a village in the prefecture of Florina who made a complaint in

Strasbourg in May 1989, and from Stefos Skenderis, a teacher for the

Greek State from Florina.

b. As disclosed by the "Australian-Macedonian Committee for Human

Rights" on 1 August 1990, Hristos Sidiropulos is the invisible leader

of a secret phantom organization of "Aegean Macedonians", the "Central

organizing committee for the Macedonian human rights of the Macedonians

of Aegean Macedonia". In 1984 this organization mailed a manifesto

containing the "demands of the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia" which

caused the Greek people profound unease and distress concerning the

activities of invisible agents belonging to an independence movement

within Greek Macedonia. This secret phantom movement remains unknown;

however it claims to be based in Thessaloniki and it is certain that

it is directed from abroad and imports all its printed propaganda

against Greek Macedonia from foreign countries.

c. The application under discussion tomorrow in Thessaloniki's Court

of Appeal for the "Home of Macedonian Civilisation" will in fact set

in motion a provocation of Greek justice which was planned abroad as

far back as 1989. The aim is to trap Greece into a series of legal

refusals which will then be used against Greece by Skopje in the

European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Ministers at the

Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The plot is satanic because if the

Greek courts accept the application by the leader of the "Aegean

Macedonians" Greece will be legalizing a Trojan horse sent by Skopje

to trap unwitting bilingual Greek Macedonians and deliver them to the

claws of foreigners and of propaganda inspired from abroad.

The Slavic plot which is to be submitted tomorrow in Thessaloniki

to unsuspecting Appeal Court judges is part of a directive released by

independence activists in Australia two years ago, in 1989, following

their first appearance on the international stage at the Council of

Europe in Strasbourg. At the time "Macedonian" professors Michael Radin

and Chris Popov, who are Australian citizens, released a plan of action

entitled "The road to Macedonian human rights" on behalf of the

Thessaloniki "section". The report was written and printed abroad in

English and its title mentions that it is a publication of Hristos

Sidiropulos' secret phantom organization in Thessaloniki. It contains

55 pages; page 38 contains the following revelations:

"The following scenario is a convincing way of questioning in a

lawful manner the denial of the rights of the Macedonians by the Greek

State. Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia could for instance set up an

association for popular dances with the name "Macedonian Folklore

Association". The association will undoubtedly be forbidden by the laws

mentioned above, which forbid the establishment of groups on grounds

of nationality. Provided all appeals to the lower courts are turned

down, the case will go through the Greek legal system until it reaches

the country's highest court, the Court of Cassation. The refusal of an

appeal at this level will mean that all local legal remedies have been

exhausted. Therefore one of the conditions for submission of a case to

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights will have been

fulfilled. Within six months of the High Court's decision an

application can be submitted on the grounds that the right to freedom

of peaceful assembly and association has been violated, with the result

that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, or the Council

of Ministers of the Council of Europe, will pronounce a decision

against Greece."

This foreign directive will be carried out to the letter tomorrow

when the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal deliberates over the application

for the "Home of Macedonian Civilisation".

Hristos Sidiropulos and Stavros Anastasiadis are acting under the

guidance of independence activists Radin and Popov who drew up the

above report or directive. With them as leaders, along with two others

from Skopje and about ten other representatives of "Macedonian"

independence movements from the United States, Canada and Europe,

Sidiropulos and Anastasiadis appeared in Copenhagen at a meeting of the

Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe to accuse Greece in

a press conference organized by Yugoslavia's official diplomatic

representation at the CSCE. At the conference Sidiropulos was seated

beside the secretary of the Yugoslav embassy, who directed the

discussion with the foreign journalists.

"Macedonia", a newspaper in the service of Slav independence

activists fighting in the United States and Canada for the separation

of Greek Macedonia and its incorporation into Skopje, published a

revelatory photograph on 15 July 1990 in which Sidiropulos and

Anastasiadis appear beside their instructors Radin and Popov and their

leaders from Skopje in the midst of the group of agents presented by

the Yugoslavian diplomatic mission at the CSCE. In this newspaper which

is run by Slav independence activists, the photograph and report figure

under the headline "Yugoslavia protecting minority rights".

Menu

SIDIROPULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

SIDIROPULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

LEXI