ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 26.09.1996"МАНУССАКИС (manoussakis) И ДРУГИЕ ПРОТИВ ГРЕЦИИ" [рус.(извлечение), англ.]

с представителем Правительства в том, что прежде всего нужно рассмотреть, имеется ли вообще возможность в соответствии со статьей 9 для "предварительного ограничения", которое в данном деле состоит в том, что строительство или функционирование мест отправления культа зависит от предварительного правительственного разрешения и что осуществление такого строительства помещения или его использование без такого разрешения является правонарушением.
5. Как и в отношении статьи 10, я против того, чтобы и здесь сразу ответить на этот вопрос отрицательно. Можно допустить, что функционирование - и a fortiori строительство - молитвенного дома в данном конкретном месте может поднимать серьезные вопросы публичного порядка, и такая возможность, по-моему, полностью не исключает зависимость решения этого вопроса от предварительного разрешения властей.
6. Однако я думаю, что в данном случае, когда речь идет о свободе религии, - даже больше, чем в случае со статьей 10, - вопрос является очень сложным, ибо за соображениями публичного порядка может легко скрываться нетерпимость. Когда же существует официальная государственная религия, вопрос становится еще более трудно разрешимым. Должно быть абсолютно ясно, как в свете формулировки рассматриваемого Закона, так и в свете его применения, что требование предварительного разрешения никоим образом не имеет целью позволить соответствующим органам "оценивать" принципы и нормы религиозной общины заявителей; принципиально важно, чтобы требуемое разрешение всегда выдавалось, за исключением тех случаев, когда чрезвычайные, объективные или непреодолимые препятствия по соображениям публичного порядка делают это невозможным.
7. Правительство тщетно пыталось убедить нас, что Закон N 1363/1938 удовлетворяет этим, по общему признанию, строгим требованиям. Представитель Правительства утверждал, что в соответствии с этим Законом нет места для свободы усмотрения, но он в то же самое время объяснил, что требуется, чтобы власти тщательно рассмотрели, является ли заявление результатом подлинных религиозных потребностей или средством прозелитизма и, кроме того, являются ли приемлемыми принципы и нормы религиозной общины заявителей. И действительно, требование, чтобы имелись по крайней мере пятьдесят семей, проживающих в одной местности, говорит не только о том, что имеется свобода усмотрения, но также свидетельствует, что Закон N 1363/1938 идет намного дальше, чем это позволительно в отношении предварительного ограничения свободы религии. В дополнение ко всему вышесказанному в процедуре выдачи разрешения участвуют и церковные органы господствующей религии, что, даже если их участие ограничено строго консультативными функциями (в чем я сомневаюсь), свидетельствует само по себе, что рассматриваемый Закон не удовлетворяет вышеупомянутым строгим требованиям и несовместим с положениями статьи 9.
8. В целом я считаю, что заявители справедливо отмечают, что рассматриваемый Закон несовместим со статьей 9.



EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF MANOUSSAKIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 26.IX.1996)
In the case of Manoussakis and Others v. Greece <1>,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A <2>, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
--------------------------------
Notes by the Registrar
<1> The case is numbered 59/1995/565/651. The first number is the case"s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case"s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
<2> Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.
Mr R. Bernhardt, President,
Mr R. Macdonald,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr S.K. Martens,
Mr A.N. Loizou,
Sir John Freeland,
Mr L. Wildhaber,
Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr P. Kuris,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 May and 29 August 1996,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 5 July 1995, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in an application (no. 18748/91) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by four Greek nationals, Mr Titos Manoussakis, Mr Constantinos Makridakis, Mr Kyriakos Baxevanis and Mr Vassilios Hadjakis, on 7 August 1991.
The Commission"s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Greece recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 9 of the Convention (art. 9).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr N. Valticos, the elected judge of Greek nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 13 July 1995, in the presence of the Registrar, Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court, drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr B. Walsh, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr A.N. Loizou, Mr F. Bigi, Mr L. Wildhaber and Mr D. Gotchev (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43). Subsequently, Sir John Freeland and Mr P. Kuris, substitute judges, replaced Mr Bigi, who had died, and Mr Walsh, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Greek Government ("the Government"), the applicants" lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). The Government"s and the applicants" memorials reached the registry on 13 and 14 March 1996 respectively. On 15 April 1996 the Secretary to the Commission indicated that the Delegate did not wish to reply in writing.
5. In accordance with the President"s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 May 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr L. Papidas, President, Legal Council of State, Agent,
Mr A. Marinos, Vice-President, Supreme Administrative Court,
Mr P. Kamarineas, Senior Adviser, Legal Council of State,
Mr V. Kondolaimos, Adviser, Legal Council of State, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr C.L. Rozakis, Delegate;
(c) for the applicants
Mr A. Garay, avocat at the Paris Court of Appeal,
Mr P. Vegleris, honorary member of the Bar and emeritus professor at Athens University,
Mr P. Bitsaxis, of the Athens Bar, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Rozakis, Mr Vegleris, Mr Garay, Mr Bitsaxis, Mr Marinos and Mr Kamarineas, and their answers to its question and a question put by a judge.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. Particular circumstances of the case
A. Background
6. The applicants are all Jehovah"s Witnesses and live in Crete.
7. On 30 March 1983 Mr Manoussakis rented under a private agreement a room measuring 88 square metres in a building located in the Ghazi district of Heraklion (Crete). The agreement specified that the room would be used "for all kinds of meetings, weddings, etc. of Jehovah"s Witnesses".
8. On 2 June 1983 he laid a complaint against persons unknown at Heraklion police station because the day before the windows of the room had been broken by unidentified persons. On 26 September 1983 he laid a further complaint concerning a similar incident that occurred on 23 September.
9. By an application of 28 June 1983 lodged with the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs the applicants requested an authorisation to use the room as a place of worship. On the same day they went to the chairman of Ghazi District Council to ask him to certify their signatures on the application. He refused, however, on the grounds that the applicants did not reside in his district and that they had failed to show him the document bearing their signatures. Following the intervention of the prefect of Heraklion, the Deputy Minister of the Interior and the Speaker of the Greek Parliament, the chairman withdrew his opposition and agreed to certify the signatures on a new application lodged on 18 October 1983.
10. On 30 July 1983 the Ghazi Orthodox Parish Church notified the Heraklion police authorities that the room was being used as an unauthorised place of worship for Jehovah"s Witnesses and informed them of the applications made by the applicants to the Minister. The church authorities asked the police to carry out an inspection of the premises, to take punitive measures against those responsible and above all to prohibit any further meetings until the Minister had granted the authorisation in question.
11. The applicants received five letters from the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, dated 25 November 1983 and 17 February, 17 April, 17 June, 16 August and 10 December 1984, informing them that it was not yet in a position to take a decision because it had not received all the necessary information from the other departments concerned.
12. On 3 March 1986 the Heraklion public prosecutor"s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants under section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938 (anagastikos nomos), as amended by Law no. 1672/1939 (see paragraph 21 below). In particular they were accused of having "established and operated a place of worship for religious meetings and ceremonies of followers of another denomination and, in particular, of the Jehovah"s Witnesses" denomination without authorisation from the recognised ecclesiastical authorities and the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, such authorisation being required for the construction and operation of a church of any faith".
B. Proceedings in the Heraklion Criminal Court
sitting at first instance
13. On 6 October 1987 the Heraklion Criminal Court sitting at first instance and composed of a single judge (Monomeles Plimmeliodikeio) acquitted the applicants on the ground that "in the absence of any acts of proselytism, followers of any faith are free to meet even if they do not have the requisite authorisation".
C. Proceedings in the Heraklion Criminal Court
sitting on appeal
14. The Heraklion public prosecutor"s office took the view that the Criminal Court had incorrectly assessed the facts and accordingly lodged an appeal against the judgment of 6 October 1987.
15. On 15 February 1990 the Heraklion Criminal Court sitting on appeal and composed of three judges (Trimeles Plimmeliodikeio), sentenced each of the accused to three months" imprisonment convertible into a pecuniary penalty of 400 drachmas per day of detention, and fined them 20,000 drachmas each. It noted as follows:
"... the accused had converted the room that they had rented into a place of worship, in other words a small temple intended to serve as a place of devotion for a limited circle of persons as opposed to a public building in which everyone without distinction is free to worship God. Thus they established this place on 30 July 1983 and made it accessible ... to others, in particular, their fellow Jehovah"s Witnesses from the region (limited circle of persons), without the authorisation of the recognised ecclesiastical authority and of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs. At this place they worshipped God by engaging in acts of prayer and devotion (preaching, reading of the scriptures, praising and prayers) and did not confine themselves to the mere holding of meetings for followers and the reading of the gospel ..."
D. Proceedings in the Court of Cassation
16. On 5 March 1990 the applicants appealed on points of law. They argued, inter alia, that the provisions of section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938, in particular the obligation to seek an authorisation to establish a place of worship, were contrary to Articles 11 and 13 of the Greek Constitution and to Articles 9 and 11 of the European Convention (art. 9, art. 11).
17. In a judgment of 19 March 1991 the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal on the following grounds:
"The provisions of section 1 of Law no. 1363/1938 and of the royal decree of 20 May/2 June 1939 implementing that Law are contrary neither to Article 11 nor to Article 13 of the 1975 Constitution, for the right to freedom of worship is not unlimited and may be subject to control. The exercise of this right is subject to certain conditions set down in the Constitution and at law: it must be a known religion, not a secret religion; there must be no prejudice to public order or morals; neither must there be any acts of proselytism, such acts being expressly prohibited in the second and third sentences of Article 13 para. 2 of the Constitution. These provisions are, moreover, not contrary to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ..., Article 9 (art. 9) of which guarantees freedom of religion but Article 9 para. 2 (art. 9-2) of which authorises 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 of others.
The said provisions ..., which empower the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, who has responsibility for all denominations and faiths, to investigate whether the above-mentioned conditions are met, are contrary neither to the 1975 Constitution nor to Article 9 of the

"СОГЛАШЕНИЕ ОБ УСЛОВИЯХ ПРЕБЫВАНИЯ СЕКРЕТАРИАТА МЕЖГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО СОВЕТА РУКОВОДИТЕЛЕЙ МИНИСТЕРСТВ И ВЕДОМСТВ ПО СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВУ В ОБЛАСТИ МАШИНОСТРОЕНИЯ НА ТЕРРИТОРИИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ"(Заключено в г. Москве 24.09.1996)  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также