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 D ecisions). 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 (unan imously).

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 no t 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 appl icants (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