Resolution ResDH (2001)82 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 December 1996 in the case of Efstratiou against Greece

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 July 2001 at the 760 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Efstratiou case delivered on 18 December 1996 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 24095/94) against Greece, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 April 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by three Greek nationals, Petros , Anastassia and Sophia Efstratiou , Jehovah’s witnesses, and that the Commission declared admissible, in particular, their complaints relating to the suspension from school of the third applicant, who had refused, because of her pacifist religious convictions and those of her parents, to take part in a school parade on occasion of a national holiday and to the lack of effective domestic remedies against this sanction;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 28 May 1996;

Whereas in its judgment of 18 December 1996 the Court notably:

- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention and of Article 2 of Protocol No.1 as regards the Sophia Efstratiou's suspension from school;

- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 9 of the Convention and with Article 2 of Protocol No.1 as regards the lack of effective domestic remedies against the Sophia Efstratiou's suspension from school;

- held, unanimously, that the judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage;

- held the respondent State was to pay the applicants, within three months, 600 000 drachmas for costs and expenses, on which sum simple interest at an annual rate of 6% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46 of the Convention, which apply to cases transmitted under former Article 54 of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 18 December 1996, having regard to Greece’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 (former Article 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the general measures taken in order to prevent new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);

Having satisfied itself that on 26 February 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of 18 December 1996,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Greece, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46 (former Article 54) of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH (2001)82

Information provided by the Government of Greece during the examination of the Efstratiou case by the Committee of Ministers

The Government of Greece notes that the violations of Article 13 in the Efstratiou and Valsamis cases were due to the well settled case-la w of the Supreme Administrative Court according to which decisions of school authorities to impose on pupils the penalties provided in Article 27 of Presidential Decree Nos. 104/1979 (including suspension from school for up to 5 days) could not be contested before the administrative courts. Only decisions ordering transfer to another school had been held to be quashable by the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraphs 17 and 49 of the judgment).

Following the finding of violations in these two cases, the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have been disseminated within the Ministries of justice and of National Education and Religious Affairs and have also been transmitted to the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgments were also published (in Greek) with comments in " To Syntagma " (1997, p. 995), a journal widely disseminated in legal circles.

The Government considers that, having regard to the dissemination and publication of these judgments and to the recent developments concerning the direct effect of the Convention and of the European Court’s case-law in Greek law (as evidenced by Resolution DH(99)714 in the Papageorgiou case and new recent examples from the domestic case-law, notably, judgment 14/1999 of the Court of Cassation (plenary); judgment 954/1999 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal; judgment 1141/1999 of the Supreme Administrative Court (first chamber); etc.), domestic courts will not fail to declare admissible future complaints against decisions ordering disciplinary sanctions, such as suspension from school, and to quash those decisions if they are unlawful. The lack of specific jurisprudence showing this change in the courts’ attitude is only due to the very exceptional nature of such complaints.

The Government therefore considers that there is no risk of new violations similar to those found in the Efstratiou and Valsamis judgments and that Greece has consequently complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 (former Article 53) of the Convention.