GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR (GHM)

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP – GREECE (MRG-G)

Address: P.O. Box 60820, GR-15304 Glyka Nera

Telephone: (+3) 010.347.22.59. Fax: (+3) 010.601.87.60.e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr website: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN GREECE

September 2002

NOTE

This report was initially prepared in December 1999 on the basis of the common guidelines (shaded below) of an International Helsinki Federation project, covering most Balkan and Central European countries. It was revised three years later. The material presented here is as accurate as possible, though not exhaustive, nor fully up to date. Your comments to office@greekhelsinki.gr will be welcome. The report is based on the ten-year collective work of the staff of two NGO’s, GHM and MRG-G.

1. Background to History, Religious Demography and the Position of Religion in Society

- Outline briefly major historical developments in religious freedom and church-state relations during the late 19-th and 20-th century that you consider important to understand the present situation in your country: Please include in this overview all religious denominations that were historically present on the territory of your country as it is physically defined today. Please also include information on the canonical status of different churches.

The Orthodox Church in Greece has been considered as the protector of Greekness or of the so-called “Hellenic Orthodox Civilization.” The actual role of the Orthodox Church since the creation of the Greek nation-state has been interpreted in many diverse and opposing ways; nevertheless, in all Greek constitutions the Orthodox Church is accorded the status of the “prevailing religion.”^[1] Though most religious minorities will come to enjoy some kind of protection based on agreements and protocols, the fact that as of the foundation of the newborn Hellenic Republic the Orthodox Church was acknowledged as a prevailing religion led to inevitable violations of freedom of religion and belief which persist to the present.

Greece, like all other Balkan countries, has followed discriminatory policies against its citizens with a minority religious identity. This occurred despite the fact that almost all international treaties Greece signed since its independence in 1830 included clauses for the protection of religious minorities. The wars of this century (the Balkan Wars and the two World Wars), along with the resulting bilateral agreements with Bulgaria and Turkey to exchange the respective minority populations, contributed to the substantial cleansing of the current Greek territory from most of its non-Orthodox populations. It was similar to the other states of the peninsula, which was cleansed from the corresponding minority populations. Approximately 106,000 Muslims were left in Thrace (North-Eastern Greece) in exchange for roughly 110,000 Greeks who were left in Istanbul and in two islands, Gkeada (Imvros in Greek) and Bozcaada (Tenedos in Greek). This was done on the basis of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which called for the exchange of all Muslims of Greece with Orthodox Christians of Turkey. The 1928 census mainly acknowledged the presence of 63,000 Sephardic and 9,000 Greek Jews (mostly annihilated by Nazi Germany) and 28,000 Catholics.

According to Professor Adamantia Pollis, the central position held by the Eastern Orthodox religion as a sign of Greekness, the legal foundations of the Greek Orthodox Church and its symbiotic relation with the state, as well as the remaining limitations on religious freedom of minorities, testify the exclusion of Greece from the secular powers of the Enlightenment and the fundamental principles of most Western European states.^[2]

- To the degree possible, please list the religious denominations in your country with percentages of adherents according to: 1) the official sources, 2) unofficial surveys, 3) the denominations themselves, and 4) any other reliable sources. Please note specifically the differences, if any, in the information obtained from different sources.

The National Statistical Service has not included any questions to record religious minorities since 1951. “It may be assumed that this attitude of not including questions in recent censuses about even the linguistic and religious preferences of the population is consistent with a more general policy to discourage discussion on issues concerning ethnic, linguistic, or religious differences in Greek society.”^[3]

The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne has guaranteed the rights of the Muslims of Thrace. The state has recently revised its estimate of the Muslim minority downwards, from 120,000 recorded in the previous estimate to 98,000 based on the 1991 census. It also claims, “50% of the minority are of Turkish origin, 35% are Pomaks (an indigenous population that speaks Slavic dialect and espoused Islam during the Ottoman rule) and 15% are Roma.”^[4] Using the same census, the Greek Helsinki Monitor and Minority Rights Group-Greece’s estimates are slightly lower and with a breakdown that is also slightly different. There are 90,000 Muslims, of whom approximately 50,000 speak Turkish as a mother tongue, 30,000 Pomaks and 10,000 Roma. Nevertheless, the majority of all Muslims, including Pomaks and the Roma, have a Turkish national identity today. Greek authorities were promoting a Turkish identity in the early 1950s under the so-called Fessopoulos Directives. Under the 1968 Protocol (which replaced a weak 1951 Educational Agreement), they banned the use of the attribute “Muslim” and instead imposed the attribute “Turkish,” and established Turkish-language education to all Muslims. The policy contributed significantly to the assimilation of most Pomaks and Roma by the Turkish dominant element in the Muslim minority. Turkish became the only taught minority language. Despite the rising tension between the two communities in Cyprus as well as the outbreak of violence against the Greeks of Istanbul in 1955, the enemy was, in line with the Cold War, Bulgaria and not the nominal NATO ally Turkey.

However, since the 1980s, not only have the Greek authorities been denying the Turkish identity, but also they have often persecuted and prosecuted it. This has led to the creation of a climate of mutual suspicion and recrimination between the minority and the state. The minority once again was identified as a religious one -- a Muslim minority. Moreover, subsequent policies of the 1990s were indicative of Greece’s attempt to promote the Pomaks’ identity through the acknowledgment of the multi-ethnic character of the Muslim minority. Substantial rewards were promised to Muslim minorities who would assume the Pomak identity. However, most Pomaks who felt that it was an effort to “divide and rule” met the policy with hostility. In this light, the status of the Muslims in Thrace has both a political and a religious.

A significant amount of immigrant population resides in Greece and, thereby, increases the members of the Muslim community in the country. The exact number remains unknown, since a large number of them remains still unregistered and therefore does not hold provisional or permanent residence permit. It is nevertheless estimated that around 200,000 to 300,000 Muslims from Albanian, African, and Arab origins are living in Greece. Most of these Muslims live in the large cities, with the largest population in the working class districts of Athens, which, however, lacks a mosque.

There are traditional populations of Jehovah’s Witnesses (estimated with all family members at 46,414), Jews (estimated at 4,000 - 5,000), Catholics (estimated at 50,000 of which some 5,000 of Eastern Rite Catholics who belong to the traditional Catholic minority), and Protestants (estimated at 20,000 - 25,000). As a religious minority, the Old Calendarists are far more numerous (700,000 to 1 million) and differ only in the fact that they belong to an administratively non-recognized Orthodox Church (as opposed to the New Calendarist, who are officially recognized). None of these religious minorities, with the exception of a significant number of the traditional Muslim communities living in Western Thrace as we have already indicated, currently proclaims a non-Greek national identity. Regarding religious minority population increase, Catholic immigrants arriving in Greece over the last decade from the Philippines, Poland, and other countries have raised the number of Catholics in Greece to over two hundred thousand. Similarly, the Protestant population has increased due to new immigrant arrivals, but no figures are available.

Orthodox Christians comprise 95% of the traditional Greek population. In the most recent census summer 2001, the total population was 11 million of which 10 million are considered to belong to families traditionally living in Greece, while 1 million belong to families that migrated to Greece in the 1990s.

- To the degree possible, indicate regional presence, city-country differences, political party affiliations and ethnic bases of different denominations.

Immigrant Muslim communities live primarily in Greater Athens and Greater Thessaloniki, while an important historical Muslim minority also resides in Thrace. Significant numbers of Catholics live in islands with a Catholic tradition, like Tinos and Siros, and in major cities like Athens and Thessaloniki. All the other religious minorities can be found throughout Greece. Religious minorities in Greece do not have a particular political affiliation. Generally their voters can be found in all political parties, although none of these parties has particularly favorable positions towards religious minorities. For ethnic affiliation see the answer to the previous question.

2. Country’s Obligations under International Law

- What is the status of international law in your legal system?

Ratified international instruments take precedence over other Greek law as per Article 28 par. 1 of the Constitution: “The generally recognized rules of international law, as well as international conventions as of the time they are sanctioned by statute and become operative according to their respective conditions, shall be an integral part of domestic Greek law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of the law.”^[5]

Therefore, as it has been argued in several international forums by the Greek State, international human rights instruments are, directly applicable by the courts and other tribunals or administrative authorities. Also, Greek courts have the power and the duty not to apply a legislative provision contrary to the Constitution or to international legal standards; they also give due attention to the case-law of the international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies when interpreting human rights instruments.

- What are the international treaties dealing with religious freedom to which your country is a party? Please indicate both multilateral and bilateral treaties.

Regarding religious freedom and the protection of the rights of religious minorities and of persons belonging to those minorities, Greece cooperates with international organizations of which it is a member: United Nations, European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE, ILO, and UNESCO.

Greece is a contracting party to several international instruments that should provide favorable conditions for religious freedom and for the protection of religious minorities.

· Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949)

· Geneva Convention (1956)

· Convention on the Prevention and Repression of the Crime of Genocide (1954)

· U.N. Convention for the abolition of any racial discrimination (1970)

· European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ratified in Greece with legislative decree (ratified in 1953, withdrew between 1967-1974 and it was again ratified in 1974)

· Protocol (No1) to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (as above)

· Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1959)

· Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1975)

· Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (U.N.) (1981)

· Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (No. 111, ILO) (1984)

· European Social Charter (1984)

· International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1985)

· European Convention on Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (1993)

· International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1997)

· Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1997)

· Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (1997)

· International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1970)

· Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) (signed 1997 not ratified)

· U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992)

· Protocol no.12 to the European Convention on Human Rights on the

Prohibition of All Forms of Discrimination

· The European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights (1997)

· Amsterdam Treaty (1999)

· Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975)

· Concluding Document of the Madrid Meeting of Representatives of the Participating

States held on the basis of the provisions of the Final Act relating to the follow up

to the Conference (1983)

· Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension (1990)

· Charter of Paris for a new Europe (1991)

Also, since 1985 Greece has recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights,

the U.N. Committee against Torture, and the European Social Charter which provide the possibility for individual claimants to seek justice at an international level once the national legal means have been exhausted.

- How strictly has your country abided by the reporting procedures established by the international treaties to which it is a party? Were any recommendations made by those treaty bodies in regard to religious freedom? Were they implemented by your government?

Greek governments in the past rarely reported to the bodies established by the international treaties that Greece is a party of. In more recent years more and more often the Greek government is forced to do so in order to defend itself, since international and national NGOs who monitor the situation of human rights in Greece have submitted alternative reports to the UN, the Council of Europe, the OSCE and other intergovernmental institutions, while the country was scheduled to be reviewed without state reports by bodies like CERD and CESCR. Thus governmental as well as alternative reports and presentations have been submitted to the UN committees of CERD, CRC, CAT, CEDAW and the OSCE.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, acting within the terms of his mandate, visited Greece from 18 to 25 June 1996 at the invitation of the Greek Government. During his stay, the Special Rapporteur visited Athens (18-22 June and 25 June) and Alexandroupolis (22-24 June) in order to meet with official representatives of, inter alia, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Education and Cults, the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization, Justice and Defense, as well as the Prefect of Evros. He also met with religious and political leaders representing religious minorities (with the exception of the Orthodox believers of the Old Calendar), ecclesiastical authorities of the Orthodox Church, prominent individuals, and representatives of non-governmental organizations, including Greek Helsinki Monitor, Minority Rights Group-Greece, SOS Racisme, The Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights, The Ligue Hellénique pour les Droits de l’ Homme and Helsinki Citizens Group. He also visited places of worship. During his stay, the Special Rapporteur focused particularly on legislation regarding of tolerance and non-discrimination based on religion or belief, on the implementation of this legislation, and on policy in force.

The UN Special Rapporteur Abdelfattah Amor “notes that there are limitations on freedom of worship which are inconsistent with internationally established human rights norms. (…) [He] considers the constitutional provisions prohibiting proselytism to be inconsistent with the 1981 [UN] Declaration and stresses the need for greater respect for internationally recognized human rights norms, including freedom to convert and freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, and in public or private (…). These comments also apply to the [1938 and 1939] Necessity Acts concerning proselytism. Removal of the legal prohibition against proselytism is very strongly recommended. Failing this, proselytism could be defined in such a way as to leave appropriate leeway for the exercise of religious freedom. With regard to legislation governing places of worship, the Special Rapporteur is in favor of abolishing the Necessity Acts and elaborating a new law which would dispense with the need to seek the opinion of the Orthodox Church for the construction of places of worship and would confer on the State the competence to guarantee religious freedom (…). With regard to the legislation on identity cards, which provides for mention to be made of the holder’s religion, the Special Rapporteur recalls the resolution of the European Parliament (see chap. I, B, para. 30), which considered this provision, firstly, as a violation of the fundamental freedoms of the individual, particularly freedom of opinion and religious freedom, which are the exclusive province of the human conscience and, secondly, as a provision that should be abolished. The Special Rapporteur fully supports this resolution. (…) Lastly, regarding other legal issues, (…) the Special Rapporteur believes it necessary to ensure that internal law is consistent with international law. With regard to the revision of the Constitution, the Special Rapporteur would like to see the necessary changes introduced in that context or set out in formal texts, with assurances that they will be interpreted in a manner consistent with religious freedom.”

With regard to the Greek State, the Special Rapporteur made the following general recommendations:

(1) The Special Rapporteur recommends that the State in its religious affairs policy should consult representatives of human rights organizations, lay, religious representatives from all religious minorities, and the Orthodox Church. Such cooperation should result in a coherent religious affairs policy focused on tolerance and non-discrimination in line with the revised legislation. It should be based on the principle of respect for the rights and freedoms of each religious community, regardless of whether it is a State religion or a minority religion.

(2) The State should also adopt and apply administrative, disciplinary, training and other measures in order to forestall and penalize any act of intolerance or discrimination on the part of the authorities. These measures include, for example, matters having to do with access to administrative posts for members of religious minorities, permits for places of worship, respect in the school system for religious beliefs and convictions, and so forth.

(3) The Special Rapporteur believes that special efforts should be made to promote and develop a culture of tolerance and human rights. The Greek authorities could play an active role in increasing the awareness of the values of tolerance and non-discrimination based on religion and belief. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur is firmly convinced that lasting progress could be made primarily through education. In particular, by ensuring that school curriculum, school textbooks and properly trained teachers disseminate a culture that promotes tolerance in the fields of religion and belief.

(4) In addition, as he noticed problems of intolerance and discrimination in the fields of administration of justice and the media, the Special Rapporteur believes that it would be appropriate to make use of the Center for Human Rights program for advisory services (see E/CN.4/1995/91). Appropriate training of the personnel of the judicial system, the administration in general and the media in the areas of tolerance and non-discrimination based on religion and belief would be extremely useful.

(5) The Special Rapporteur also wishes to stress the importance of establishing a permanent interfaith dialogue between religious minorities and the Orthodox Church in order to combat all forms of intolerance and religious discrimination.

(6) Lastly, the Special Rapporteur reiterates the need to shield religious matters from political tensions and struggles so that religious freedom may express itself in characteristic contemplation and serenity. This would benefit all religious faiths, Greek society in general, religious freedom and human rights in Greece.^[6]

No amendments to these laws, dating from the dictatorship of the 1930s, have been introduced. Neither the 1998 nor the 2001 constitutional amendments have not taken into account the UN recommendations. As a result, Greek legislation and practice has remained quite intolerant.

The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, (ECRI), in its Second Report on Greece, adopted on 10 December 1999, reports that: “The Greek Constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church as the prevailing religion. Although the Constitution also provides for freedom of religion, non-Orthodox religious - notably other Christian - groups have faced administrative obstacles and legal restrictions on religious practice and their members often experience intolerant behaviour and sometimes discrimination. The problems encountered by these groups have included difficulties in obtaining and executing building permits and opening places of worship. Obstruction by local authorities has in some cases been decisive in this respect. Some members of these religious groups have also been arrested on grounds of proselytism. The European Court of Human Rights has found Greece in violation of religious freedom in cases concerning these matters. Although the situation in these areas is reported to be improving, for example as concerns prosecutions for proselytism, ECRI considers that considerable efforts are still needed to fully guarantee freedom of religion to minority religious groups and to promote a climate of tolerance. In particular, ECRI endorses the recommendations concerning legislative reforms and implementation of laws and policies issued in 1996 by the Special Rapporteur on religious freedom of the UN Commission on Human Rights and encourages the Greek authorities to strengthen their efforts to put these recommendations into practice.” Also, regarding identity cards, and reference to ones religious identity, the report recommends: “In its first report, ECRI suggested that any reference to religion be removed from identity cards, in order to limit overt or covert discrimination against members of non-Orthodox religions, who may in some cases be considered less “Greek” than Orthodox ethnic Greeks. ECRI understands, however, that the new identity cards, which are to be issued by the Ministry of the Interior, will contain a specific reference to religion. ECRI therefore reiterates its call for the removal of this reference.” Regarding the Jewish community, the report explains that, “Although there are no reports of problems in the exercise of freedom of religion by the Jewish communities in Greece, antisemitic material often appears in the extreme right-wing media, and antisemitic undertones have also surfaced from time to time in public debate. ECRI encourages the authorities to keep the situation under review.” Finally, on the Muslim Minority of Western Thrace the report explains that: “The situation of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace is determined by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 and various other international agreements. The majority within the Muslim minority identify themselves as Turks, although this general category includes Pomaks and Muslim Roma as well. Greece officially recognizes the Muslim minority in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne. Many members of this minority of Turkish origin, however, feel discriminated against and persecuted for reasons arising out of the practical implementation of the Treaty of Lausanne.” A major issue for the Muslim minority of Western Thrace concerning their freedom of religious expression concerns administration of charitable foundations and free elections of muftis. “The administration of private charitable foundations used to support education, social welfare and minority activities. Members of the Muslim minority complain that their right to establish, manage and control such foundations is not respected by the Greek state, due to the role played by the latter in the appointment of the management boards of these foundations. ECRI considers that the right of the Muslim minority to establish, manage and control such foundations should be fully respected in accordance with Greek domestic law and the Treaty of Lausanne. It is also noted that, although Mosques operate freely in Western Thrace, the Greek Government retains and exercises the right to appoint muftis (Islamic judges and religious leaders), arguing that the appointment by the government is necessary due to the fact that muftis have judicial functions in certain civil matters (e.g. marriage and divorce, alimony, guardianship and emancipation of minors, interstate succession, etc.). This position is unsatisfactory to many members of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace. Some Muslim communities have, however, elected unofficial muftis, and in 1998 one of them was fined, - after receiving a prison sentence from a court of first instance - for usurping the authority of the official mufti. The ECRI stresses that the right of the Muslim minority to democratically choose its religious leaders should be respected. ECRI suggests that, given such an over-riding principle, it would be possible to find a means of ensuring that the persons in question have the necessary abilities to carry out these administrative duties.”^[7]

The Greek constitution gives the Eastern Orthodox church the status of an official religion, relegating other religions to a disadvantaged status. In September 1996, in a judgment against Greece for violation of article 9 on religious freedom, in the case of Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) criticized Greek legislation for “allowing far-reaching interference by the political, administrative and ecclesiastical authorities with the exercise of religious freedom” and for “imposing rigid or indeed prohibitive conditions on the practice of religious beliefs by certain non-Orthodox movements,” concluding that there is “a clear tendency on the part of the administrative and ecclesiastical authorities to use these provisions to restrict activities of faiths outside the Orthodox Church.” This case gave the Court the opportunity to express some important thoughts and principles on religious freedom: “the freedom of thought, conscience and religion protected by Article 9 is one of the foundations of the democratic society. In its religious dimension it is one of the most vital elements that form the identity of the devotees and their perception of life. It is also a precious attainment for atheists, agnostics, sceptics, and indifferent alike. Pluralism, which is inseparably linked with the democratic society, is dependent on it… The freedom of religious expression is not only exercised collectively, in public and within the circle of the co-believers. It can also be exercised individually and in private. In addition, it includes, in principle, the right of somebody to try and persuade their neighbours through teaching. Without the recognition of this right the freedom to change religion or beliefs protected in Article 9 would become void” ^[8] In another case against Greece brought to the ECHR in relation to violation of Article 9 concerning several JWs who had been persecuted and convicted for illegal operation of religious venues the Court produced a verdict that was extremely critical to Greece. In particular, it condemned Greek legislation for “allowing the flagrant intervention of political, administrative, and ecclesiastical authorities in the exercise of religious worship” The Court even moved a step further from the previous case in explaining the notion of religious freedom. In its decision it included the following thinking: “the right to religious freedom, as it is meant by the Convention, excludes any estimation by the state on the legality of religious beliefs or the way of expressing them.”^[9]

Two other cases reached the ECHR concerning the refusal of two Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses pupils to participate in the National Day school parades. The Court in its ruling did not ascertain that a violation of Article 9 had occurred. It did, however, find that Article 13, in conjunction with Articles 9 and 2 of the First Protocol, had been violated. Specifically, the Court referred to the absence of a national authority responsible for examining the pupil’s petition. The Court expressed its surprise at the expulsion of the two pupils for their refusal to participate in the parades and put forward the general principle that “the parents have the right to enlighten and inform their children, to exercise in relation to the children their natural parental function as educators or to guide their children to a path in line with their own personal religious or philosophical beliefs.”^[10] Further, we will be presenting these and other cases taken by ECHR in detail.

These two cases and their rulings changed considerably the position of pupils from other religious communities in Greek schools. According to the latest related law (Presidential Decree 121/1998) on primary school education, the exemption of those pupils from the classes on “religiousness” and from the compulsory participation in the Morning Prayer and mass were secured. In relation to the National Day parades, no official exemption has been foreseen but any form of penalty against pupils refusing to participate is forbidden. In addition, the second grade “religiousness” book for the Lyceums, which had a special chapter preaching intolerance towards other religious denominations, was abolished, though later replaced by others that continue to contain negative statements about the non-Orthodox religious communities.

The Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Human Rights, in its Memorandum to the Greek Government (14-05-1998) noted that:

1. The prerogative of the Minister of Education, who is legally responsible to assess whether there are “substantial reasons” to approve or not to approve applications for the foundation and operation of temples and houses of worship, is extremely broad.

2. There should be a legislative initiative to fix a deadline within which the Minister of Education should have decided upon the requests for the foundation and operation of a temple or a house of worship.

3. The Greek government has the responsibility to inform the Greek courts over the content of the ruling in the case of Manousakis and others and see to its implementation by the Greek justice system.

The European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) (committee of independent experts to the European Social Charter) received a complaint by the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) against Greece (8/2000) that the provisions of Act no 2510/1997 which allows conscientious objectors to perform civilian service instead of military service, as well as their application in practice, are of a punitive nature. It contends that the modalities and conditions for the performance of this civilian service amount to forced labour. ECSR concluded six against three votes that the situation in Greece is not in conformity with article 1 paragraph 2 of the Charter because the duration of civilian service is 18 months longer than that of the corresponding military service. A conscientious objector may therefore perform alternative civilian service for a period up to 39 months. ECSR considers that these additional 18 months, during which the persons concerned are denied the right to earn their living in an occupation freely entered upon, do not come within reasonable limits, compared to the duration of military service. It therefore considers that this additional duration, because of its excessive character, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on “the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon”, and is contrary to Article 1 par. 2 of the Charter.

In 2002, in its concluding observations the UN’s Committee of the Rights of the Child, in its report on Greece, expressed “its concern at reports of administrative and social pressures being placed on children from religious minorities including, for example, the requirement that a student’s secondary school graduation certificate indicates, where this is the case, that the student does not practice the Greek Orthodox religion. (…) The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that a child’s religious affiliation, or lack of, in no way hinders respect for the child’s rights, including the right to non-discrimination and to privacy, for example in the context of information included in the school graduation certificate.”^[11]

- Does your country adhere to a mechanism of individual complaint established by an international treaty? Please indicate if any cases of religious freedom violation in your country have been considered by treaty bodies.

Greece adheres to the mechanisms of individual complaint to the ECHR and to UN CAT but not to UN CERD. Below are listed cases of religious freedom with judgments against Greece (or, in the cases of Pentidis and Tsavachidis, friendly settlements to avoid judgments against Greece) by the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights. They concern all religions: one case for the dominant Orthodox Christian Church, as well as nine for the Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses, and one each for the Catholics, the Protestants and the Muslims (in October 2002 a judgment on two applications by Mehmet Agga, the other –besides Ibraim Serif- Muslim mufti selected by the minority, is expected). The array of the cases reflects the extent of the problems of religious freedom.

· “Kokkinakis v. Greece” (14307/88), 25 May 1993^[12]

· “Holy Monasteries v. Greece” (13092/87;13984/88), 9 December 1994^[13]

· “Manoussakis and others v. Greece” (18748/91), 26 September 1996^[14]

· “Valsamis v. Greece” (21787/93) 18 December 1996^[15]

· “Efstratiou v. Greece”, (24095/94) 18 December 1996^[16]

· “Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece” (19233/91;19234/91), 29 May 1997^[17]

· “Georgiadis v. Greece” (21522/93), 29 May 1997^[18]

· “Pentidis and others v. Greece” (23238/94), 9 June 1997^[19]

· “Canea Catholic Church v. Greece” (25528/94), 16 December 1997^[20]

· “Larissis & others v. Greece” (23372/94;26377/94;26378/94), 24 February 1998^[21]

· “Tsavachidis v. Greece” (28802/95), 21 January 1999^[22]

· “Serif v. Greece” (38178/97), 14 December 1999^[23]

· “Thlimmenos v. Greece” (34369/97), 6 April 2000^[24]

3. Constitutional Framework for Religious Freedom and Church-State Relations

- What are the provisions in your constitution dealing with religious freedom and church-state relations (including conscientious objection to compulsory military service)? Please provide a translation and compare them with the provisions of international law. Be sure to specifically compare them with Art. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Art. 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights in addition to any other treaties that are relevant. When doing the comparisons, please take into account General Comment No. 22 (48) of the Human Rights Committee on Art. 18 of the ICCPR.

- Has a state church been established constitutionally or in some other way? Please provide information on its historical and present legal status, and, briefly, on its political and cultural role in society. Please provide translations of the relevant legal provisions where necessary.

There is no formal legal definition of a minority in Greece. While reading the Greek Constitution one can easily see that the rights of minority members are covered within the provisions of common law, and, on an individual basis. In this light, individuals that belong to minority groups, as citizens, enjoy general rights in theory if not in practice. The clause on equal treatment implies the lack of any supplementary specific protection for minorities.

Religious freedom:

Religious freedom is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution:

Article 13

1. Freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. The enjoyment of civil rights and liberties does not depend on the individual’s religious beliefs.

2. All known religions shall be free and their rites of worship shall be performed unhindered and under the protection of the law. The practice of rites of worship is not allowed to offend public order or the good usages. Proselytism is prohibited.
3. The ministers of all known religions shall be subject to the same supervision by the State and to the same obligations toward it as those of the prevailing religion.
4. No person shall be exempt from discharging his obligations to the State or may refuse to comply with the laws by reason of his religious convictions.

5. No oath shall be imposed or administered except as specified by law and in the form determined by law.

According to Article 110 in the Constitution, the above article 13 par. 1 is not subject to any revision.

Also, article 5 par. 1 and 2 is the clearest declaration in a Greek legal document against discrimination:

Article 5

1. All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality and to participate in the social, economic and political life of the country, insofar as they do not infringe the rights of others or violate the Constitution and the good usages.

2. All persons living within the Greek territory shall enjoy full protection of their life, honour and liberty irrespective of nationality, race or language and of religious or political beliefs. Exceptions shall be permitted only in cases provided by international law. (…)

A Constitutional State Church and the legal provisions on which it is founded:

Greece has what is widely considered as state religion since the foundation of the Greek nation-state. The Special Rapporteur, in his report and relevant recommendations noted that although a State religion does not in itself run counter to any international instruments, it might ultimately do so to the extent that it justified or introduced discrimination against other religions. The present Constitution, like its forerunners, declares in Article 3, paragraph 1 the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ as the prevailing religion in the country. The legal meaning of the term “prevailing” is to determine the Orthodox faith as the official religion of Greece. This status is particularly evident in the preamble to the Constitution, the religious oath taken by the President of the Republic and members of Parliament, and the inviolability of the Holy Scriptures. The Preamble to the Constitution begins with the following incantatory religious declaration: “In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity.” Article 33, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that, before taking up duties, the President of the Republic must take the following oath before Parliament: “I do swear in the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity to guard the Constitution and the laws...” Article 59, paragraph 1, of the Constitution requires that members of Parliament, before taking up their duties, must take an oath in the Parliament Chamber in a public meeting, to “the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity.” Heterodox members of Parliament who adhere to a different religion take the same oath adapted to their own dogma or religion. No such provision applies to the oath of the President of the Republic, thereby limiting the occupancy of the high office to only an Orthodox individual.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the relations between the Church and the State, the relations between the state Church and other Orthodox Churches, even the authorized version of the “Holy Scripture”:

Article 3

1. The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece, acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united in doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine, observing unwaveringly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodal canons and sacred traditions. It is autocephalous and is administered by the Holy Synod of serving Bishops and the Permanent Holy Synod originating thereof and assembled as specified by the Statutory Charter of the Church in compliance with the provisions of the Patriarchal Tome of June 29, 1850 and the Synodal Act of September 4, 1928.

2. The ecclesiastical regime existing in certain districts of the State shall not be deemed contrary to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

3. The text of the Holy Scripture shall be maintained unaltered. Official translation of the text into any other form of language, without prior sanction by the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited.

According to some theorists, “The theoretical framework covering these relations approximates a system referred to in Greek literature as that of “State-law-rule.”^[25] There is also the opinion that the relationship between the Church and the State can be characterized as sui generis, since there is no complete separation nor is there an established church.^[26] Practically what this means according to Professor M. P. Stathopoulos, former Minister of Justice, is that the Greek state in many ways “it is religious.” As he explains, the Greek state mingles in the affairs of the Orthodox Church, which accepts this interference because it thus obtains a kind of state institutional status, allowing it, in turn, to carry greater power and influence. The state passes legislative acts that while addressing all citizens they represent the interests of the Christian Orthodox Church; also, it relegates a religious character to events that ought to be strictly secular in character in a modern state, starting from the opening of parliamentary works by the Orthodox Archbishop and going as far as acts based on religious discrimination against minorities which lead Greece repeatedly to the ECHR. In this ambiguous symbiosis “the religious objectivity of the state is debased while the church looses its autonomy.”^[27]

Church-state relations and the church’s role in society:

The Orthodox religion having the status of a prevailing religion in Greece, it follows that it becomes difficult for public opinion to define strictly the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has its own legal personality as an entity of public law, “though it enjoys preferential treatment, like for example moral and financial support from the state.” “Broadly speaking, this means that the Church enjoys the privileges of the state, being at the same time a distinct legal entity. Its legal status must be contrasted with the absence of any provision regarding the legal personality of other Churches in Greece.”^[28] The Greek state covers “employment benefits medical and pharmaceutical coverage for the clergy of the Orthodox Church who are treated as public employees.” It also covers “salaries and retirement benefits of bishops, salaries to the support staff of the Archbishop of Athens and the Metropolitans.” The state “provides free education and all expenses related to the operation of a hospital for the clergy. Finally it provides retirement benefits of the monks and salaries of the preachers.” Also, it must be added here that Law 590/1977 “The Statutory Charter of the Church of Greece” provides for the interdependence of State and Church in Article 2 when stating that “the Church must cooperate with the State in areas of common interest, such as the raising of young people according to Christian ideals, offering religious services in the armed forces, caring for people in need of protection, promoting the institution of marriage and family, establishing new religious holidays, or protecting ecclesiastical monuments. In times of danger, the Church also relies on the protection from the State.”^[29] It is clear through this law that as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned the domains which the state and those which the church govern are not clearly distinguished and therefore easily one can step into the other’s jurisdiction.

In this context, the Greek Orthodox Church often tries to intervene in the political affairs of the state and, in several occasions, has succeeded; similarly, the Greek state intervenes in the affairs of the Greek Orthodox Church, but the state’s intervention is mainly determined by how it will be reflected upon public opinion. The Orthodox Church is self-administered by the Holy Synod of Bishops that decides on all issues concerning the Church. The Holy Synod is composed of the Archbishop of Athens and Entire Greece and the Bishops. Since 1923 parallel to the Holy Synod was established the Permanent Holy Synod made up of the Archbishop as head of 12 members from the incumbent Metropolitans which expresses its opinions prior to the adoption of any law related to the Church; it supervises the contents of the books on religious instruction and secondary education and cooperates with the State on issues of religious education of the clergy. The Church can give its opinions on any Church law proposal based on law 590/1977; however, the opinions of the Permanent Holy Synod have no binding force.^[30]

The efforts for democratization and modernization of the Greek state in the last two decades was not followed, nor did it provide a guarantee, for the democratization and modernization of the Orthodox Church; on the contrary, it enforced defensive and reactionary responses. The most recent manifestation of this has been the Orthodox Churches vehement opposition to the removal of ones religious affiliation from the identity cards. This intermingling, either directly or indirectly, regarding issues such as religious education, the revision of Greek identity cards, or economic issues such as the status of the Church’s holdings has cultivated in the Greek public an opinion that the separation between the state and the Orthodox church is something unnatural so to say. This, in turn, when it does not promote overt religious intolerance towards citizens of other religious denominations, it ferments fear and suspicion towards them. When public education presents generally church-state relations as inseparable, public opinion comes to view as natural the idea of a prevailing religion and its aftereffects. Greek governments, politicians, and most intellectuals have been reluctant in challenging this general trend in Greek society, though, in the recent years significant such efforts have been taken by the government in light of family law, civil marriage and most recently, the decision taken to issue new identity cards excluding reference to one’s religion, and more recently excluding any reference to religious affiliation on most public documents.

This decision led to a great debate with Church officials who eventually supported the optional mention of one’s religion on the identity cards, and even interrogated the decision of the Authority on the Protection of Personal Data by collecting signatures to support that this decision was contrary to the general public spirit. The Authority’s members decided that the entry of religion on identity cards as well as of other elements of personal choice (name of spouse, residence, profession) were either illegal (such as the nationality and the fingerprints) based on law 2472/1997 on Protection of the individual from personal data processing. After this development, the government, through the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister Konstantinos Simitis, endorsed the decision. The decision of the Authority was binding to the government and the Prime Minister declared that he would soon proceed with its implementation. The Minister of Public Order with a new decision that was distributed to all the authorities involved in the issuance of identity cards (8200/0-441210, FEK B’ 879/17.7.2000) specified that henceforth the information to be registered in identity cards would be: first and last name, father’s and mother’s names, birth date, birth place, height, municipal roll, date of issue, issuance authority.

According to Professor Adamantia Pollis: “State-established religions do not necessarily deny or restrict freedom to other religions. In Greece, however, the maintenance of an established Church has had deleterious consequences leading to the suppression of other religions. The very existence of a Ministry of [National] Education and Religion testifies both to the intermeshing of the state and the Church and to religion as a crucially important ingredient of education. Furthermore, this ministry affirms the state’s responsibility to socialize the young into religious faith and hence to preserve and promote Greek Orthodoxy.”^[31]

The fact that the Greek Constitution acknowledges the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ as the prevailing religion of Greece, indirectly, and oftentimes directly, has had important consequences on other religious communities from enjoying freedom of religion and belief. Constitutional amendments introduced with the first parliamentary vote in 1998, and more recently, in 2001, did not affect the privileged status of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Two examples of how the Orthodox Church directly or indirectly imposes its choices on the state occurred last September 1999. The Church’s vocal and, at times, obscurantist opposition led to the cancellation of a visit by Pope John Paul II to Greece in 2000; the visit was eventually realized on May 2001, in spite of reservations by the Greek Orthodox Church. The government’s welcome to the Pope was kept down and it did not condemn the Orthodox Church’s intolerant statements. In 1999 also, the government did not condemn, let alone reverse a decision of the Bishop of Komotini that suspended a priest (who is paid by the state) for sponsoring a collection for earthquake victims in Turkey.

The relations between the Greek state and the Eastern Orthodox Church of Greece have been of concern, followed by several studies that are critical of their ambiguous symbiosis and interdependence, by an important number of eminent constitutionalists and other academics along with a small number of politicians who have reiterated their criticism publicly. Besides, the high number of convictions of Greece by the ECHR on cases concerning violation of freedom of religion and belief has forced state institutions to reconsider and re-evaluate the present legislative order concerning religious freedom and belief. There have been a significant number of discussions, debates, conferences and publications on this issue, which, nevertheless, has failed to produce a public debate that would prepare the public opinion for important constitutional and legislative revisions transforming state-church relations. Apparently, the pressure posed upon the political world by the spokespersons and representatives of the Orthodox Church have overruled any acknowledgement that Greece ought to found an unambiguously secular modern state. Professor G. Sotirelis notes that relations between the state and the church in Greece have progressively developed, through mutual clientelist dependencies and bondages, into a kind of inextricable state-religious power web that fights against tolerance and religious differences; religious liberty often is brought under a peculiar state of tutelage, sometimes it is even made a hostage, depending on the danger of the “heterodox” opponent.^[32] In this context one can understand why, as the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) reports, out of the 69 rulings on Greece by the ECHR, 16 concern religious issues.^[33]

Conscientious objection:

“The Special Rapporteur draws attention to resolution 1989/59 of 8 March 1989 of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, reaffirmed inter alia in 1991 (resolution 1991/65 of 6 March 1991) and in 1993 (resolution 1993/84 of 10 March 1993), which recognizes “the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (par.1) and, which recommends to Member States “with a system of compulsory military service, where such provision has not already been made, that they introduce for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service” (par. 3) which “should be in principle of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature” (par. 4). Also, the European Parliament had condemned the practice of Greece, which treated conscientious objectors as criminals and condemned them for long periods of imprisonment, in military prisons, N.C 115/183, 113, 1993.^[34]

In January 1998, a law was activated that put into effect a civilian alternative service to the required military service. According to the Law No.2510/97, arts 18-24, “any person claiming that the performance of his military duties is contrary to his religious beliefs may be considered an objector and …serve either without carrying a weapon of any kind or by offering social service. In such cases, the time of service shall be prolonged from 12 to 18 months.”^[35] It is obvious here that finally the Greek State’s decision to provide for alternative service has a punitive character and is sometimes applied in a degrading way since those who opt for it are forced to undertake a significantly longer period of service. Moreover, conditions are degrading considering that in contrast to military service, alternative service requires that one stays all throughout his service at distance from his permanent residence, while the salary for the services provided is the equivalent of one quarter of the minimum salary. The management of alternative civilian service, including the examination of a candidate’s application as a conscientious objector, is under a military, rather than a civilian, authority. The right to perform alternative civilian service may be suspended in time of war or public emergency. Therefore, some of the law’s provisions still fall short of international standards, and its application remains unsatisfactory.

The application of Law 2510/97 remains unsatisfactory and is clearly discriminatory towards conscientious objectors. Applicants are given very little time (seven days) to gather and submit the required documentation supporting their recognition as conscientious objectors. In some cases, it is impossible to provide them all within that short period of time, and with their dossier incomplete it is not possible to obtain the status. (See more on section-10).

On the issue of alternative civilian service, based on the Thlimenos judgement, in order for Greece to comply with the decisions of the ECHR, the existing legal framework concerning alternative service was completed by Act no. 2915 (25.5.2001) article 27 par 1-3 whereby it is decided that all penalties, which occurred before the application of the new Act no. 2510/1997 on alternative civil service, due to disobedience based on religious or ideological convictions, are deleted from the certificate of ones criminal register. The deletion must take place ex officio or after a request made by the interested party.

- Is there any treaty (e.g. concordat) that establishes a special relationship between one denomination and the state? Please provide information on the content of the treaty and, where necessary, translations of relevant provisions.

Past:

Both the London Protocol (1830), through which the nascent Greek state was granted international recognition, and the Convention of Istanbul (20 June/2 July 1881) that ratified the annexation of Thessaly and the Arta part of Epirus to Greece, had provisions for the protection of the various religious and/or ethnic minorities in Greece.

The Convention of Istanbul called, in Article 8, for a guarantee of the “freedom of religion and worship of the Ottomans” living in the ceded territories, for the “autonomy of the existing or future Muslim communities,” and for the continuing existence of the religious courts (“chéri”). It also recognized property rights on the basis of previous Ottoman laws and made specific reference to the recognition of the wakf properties (Article 4).

The following year, Law 138/22 June 1882 defined the rights and duties of the muftis. The mufti was defined as the “spiritual leader of the Muslim communities, and there were to be four of them, one each in Larisa, Farsala, Trikala and Volos (Article 1); all four muftis in place in 1882 were immediately recognized (Article 6). They were civil servants and were appointed by the state upon “nomination by the Mohameddan community of the area” (Article 2). Their duties included all family, religious and even educational matters, while the mufti of Larisa was implicitly recognized as first among equals as he had the responsibility to issue the licenses for major religious ceremonies (Article 4).

The Treaty of Athens (1/14 November 1913) which ratified the annexation by Greece of many new Ottoman territories in Epirus, Macedonia and the Aegean, in Article 11, guaranteed “to the Muslims the freedom and public worship of religion.” In their public prayers, they could continue mentioning the name of the Sultan as a Halif; “the autonomy and hierarchical organization of the Muslim communities could not be affected;” “the spiritual leaders [depended] from the Cheik-ul-Islam in Istanbul, who was granted the Chief Mufti with the spiritual approval necessary to carry his duties.” Muftis were to be elected by the Muslim voters, and the Chief Mufti was to be chosen by the state among three candidates elected by the muftis. The decisions of the muftis were obligatory for the state except in the case of inheritance, where appeals in secular Greek courts were acceptable. Article 12, moreover, called for the respect of wakf properties. In Protocol 3 of that Treaty, the Greek government committed itself to build a mosque in Athens, and four other mosques in “poor villages where there [was] perceivable need.” It also had to create a school to train naips, to recognize all private Muslim schools, where education was to be carried out in Turkish while teaching of Greek was obligatory. The same protocol reconfirmed the civil servant status of the muftis and Chief Mufti.

Following the annexation by Greece of many more territories with Muslim populations (in Thrace and Asia Minor), a new Law 2345/24 June 1920 regulated the matters pertaining to the muftis and the wakfs. A Chief Mufti was to be appointed in Athens (Article 1): the state was to select one of the three elected among and by the muftis of Greece (Article 3). The latter were to be elected by all Muslim voters of the area and had to have some diploma from a religious education establishment (Article 6). They were civil servants who had to correspond in Greek with the authorities, but could use Turkish in the correspondence among them or with the Muslim community (Article 11). Their duties included the supervision of education and wakfs (Article 10). The latter were to be administered by councils elected for three years by the voters of the area, and their income was to be spent for salaries of the clergy, school expenses, mufti, Chief Mufti and council chair’s expenses, salaries of the muftis’ offices and the communities’ offices. The wakf administrative councils were to administer the Muslim schools too (Article 12). The state was to open and operate in Athens a Muslim training academy for muftis and religious judges, with an annual budget of 100,000 drs. (Article 13).

A little later, the Treaty of Sèvres Between the Allied Powers and Greece on the Protection of Minorities in Greece (28 July/10 August 1920) was signed. Article 2 reads, “Greece has the obligation to provide to all its citizens full protection of their life and freedoms irrespective of origin, nationality, language, race and religion. All the inhabitants of any faith have the right to practice freely, in private and in public, their religious duties for as long as they do not violate public order and common customs.” It prohibited “any restriction on the free use by any Greek subject of any language, either in private or commercial relations, or with respect to religion, place, or publications of all sorts, or in public meetings.” Moreover, “the necessary means for the, oral or written, use of the language before the courts shall be provided” (Article 7). Article 7.3 reads: “Difference of religion, dogma or faith should not harm the civil and political rights of any Greek citizen.” Article 8 reads that “Greek citizens belonging to national, religious or linguistic minorities will benefit from the same real and legal protection and guarantees like the rest of the Greek citizens. In particular, they will have equal rights in building, managing, and controlling, at their own expenses, charitable institutions, schools and other educational foundations, and they will have the right of free use of their own language and free exercise of their religion in them.” In the areas annexed after 1 January 1913, primary public education was to be offered in the minority languages wherever there was sufficient demand, with the option to also make Greek obligatory; while a “fair share” of the state budget for education, religion or philanthropy had to be distributed to the minorities (Article 9). Finally, Greece had to respect the Muslim customs in matters of family law (Article 14), just like the Jewish customs including the Saturday day off (Article 10); while she “agreed to grant (…) local autonomy with respect to religious or educational issues to the Vlach communities in Pindos [mountains] (Article 12), and respect the traditional rights and freedoms of the foreign monastic communities in Mount Athos (Article 13). Finally, Greece acknowledged that all these provisions were international obligations under League of Nations guarantee that could not be altered without the consent of the majority of the League of Nations (Article 16).

After the defeat of the Greek army in Asia Minor at the hands of the nationalist Turks, the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923) and the related documents defined, among other things, the rights of the Muslims in Greece. We present below the main provisions of these documents, concerning the definition of the populations exchanged between Greece and Turkey and those exempted from them, as well as the rights of the remaining minorities:

Treaty of Peace of Lausanne (24 July 1923)

Section III: Protection of Minorities

Article 37: Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.

Article 38: The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.

All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.

Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.

Article 39: Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.

All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.

Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.

No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.

Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.

Article 40: Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.

Article 41: As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.

The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.

Article 42

The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.

These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.

The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institutions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.

Article 43

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.

This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.

Article 44

Turkey agrees that, in so far as the preceding Articles of this Section affect non-Moslem nationals of Turkey, these provisions constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent to any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

Turkey agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

Turkey further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or of fact arising out of these Articles between the Turkish Government and any one of the other Signatory Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Turkish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.

Article 45

The rights conferred by the provisions of the present Section on the non-Moslem minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Moslem minority in her territory.

In essence, the Treaty of Lausanne defined the same rights with the Treaty of Sèvres, except that now they also applied to Turkey. With Protocol XVI attached to the Treaty of Lausanne, the Treaty of Sèvres on the Protection of Minorities was also ratified by Greece. So, the Muslims, but also all other ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece enjoyed, at least on paper, a comprehensive set of rights by the standards of the inter-war period.

The legal status of the Catholic Church in independent Greece was formulated in the 1830 Third London Protocol signed by the new state and its protective powers France, Russia, and Britain. This protocol acted in accordance with the already existing Greek Constitution. It secured the freedom, equality and property of the Greek Catholics in the Cyclades and the free existence of the Catholic Church in Greece. In 1864, after the unification of Eptanisa with Greece, the London Protocol’s validity was extended to cover the Catholics of the new lands. A number of rights were secured through this Protocol for the Catholic Church in Greece: freedom of worship, recognized ownership of Catholic property, full equality for the Greek Catholics, administrative autonomy of the Catholic Church. In addition, the Greek state pledged not to intervene in the appointment of the Catholic clergy by the Holy See and to provide them with full freedom and protection in the execution of their duties, in accordance with Greek law. Despite these safeguards, since 1830 the Catholic Church has faced a number of legal obstacles in the free exercise of its practice. The biggest problem is the legal recognition of the Catholic bishoprics founded after the 1830 Protocol. The Protocol provided the legal foundation of the relations between the Greek state and the Catholic Church until the end of the First World War. A number of international treaties signed by Greece in the 20^th century provided the basis for the protection of all kinds of minorities within Greece. These were the Treaties of Sèvres (1920) and Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and the Convention of Rome (1950). The Treaty of Serves did not abolish the validity of the London Protocol but cancelled the capacity of France, Britain and Russia as protective powers of Greece. Though the Treaty of Sèvres give the Catholic Church substantial freedom and the right to define its ecclesiastical provinces and the duties of its clerical servants in them, the Greek state by refusing to recognize the provinces created after 1830, due to the opposition of the Orthodox Christian leadership, it nullified the validity of the treaty.

The 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights states in article 9.2 that the “freedom of religious or ideological expression should not be allowed to be subject of any limitations apart from those measures foreseen by the law as necessary in a democratic society for its public security, defense of public order, health and morality or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The Convention, which has been ratified by Greece, further codifies minority rights.

Christos Rozakis argued that the Treaty of Sèvres “was abolished after the end of the Second World War at the time when treaties concluded within the system of the League of Nations were being re-examined.” However, he went on to point out that such abolition was based, in Greece’s view, on a memorandum by the Secretary General of the United Nations; the latter though is ambiguous in content, as in one paragraph it implies that the Treaty may be considered as abolished while in another it states that there are no reasons for such an abolition. Greece’s main argument for its abolition is that there have been no international challenges to her argument at the time or since then. However, it can be argued that, only if some minority raises the argument, and reviewed by the Greek and international courts, the matter of the validity or not of the Treaty of Sèvres will be laid to rest.^[36]

Present:

According to Greek governments, irrespective of what international treaties have prescribed, the protection of fundamental human rights has been secured in all Greek constitutions. This is particularly important, because these official declarations have shown Greece’s willingness to align itself with the European countries that followed the liberal tradition of the Enlightenment. Therefore, all Greek Constitutions since the restoration of democracy in 1975 refer to the inviolability of religious conscience, the freedom to enjoy all individual and political rights irrespective of religious beliefs, and the free worship of every “known” religion (see art.5, 2 & art.13, 1-2). However, the implementation of these national and international instruments for the protection of freedom of religion and belief have fallen short against the conditions set by the existence of a “prevailing” religion and the persisting inability of Greek governments to act in terms of a secular modern state.

- Is there a denomination whose official status is established by custom? If yes, please provide information and background on it.

N/A

- Status of the other religious denominations

They are considered “known religions, something that allows them to worship freely, and to have a constitutional recognition. After a decision by the court, known religion has been defined a “religion or a dogma whose doctrine is open and not secret, is taught publicly and its rites of worship are also open to the public, irrespective of whether its adherents have religious authorities; such a religion or dogma needs not to be recognized or approved by an act of the State or Church.”^[37] This includes the Catholics, Evangelicals, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, and Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses. All known religions to be considered by the Greek state legal entities under private law must establish an association, or foundation, or charitable fund-raising committee pursuant to the Civil Code. The Catholic Church refuses to be considered a legal person under private or public law and has been requesting recognition by its Canon Law. In July 1999 following a parliamentary amendment the legal entity status of all institutions of the Catholic Church established before 1946 was reconfirmed. There is no formal mechanism that exists to gain recognition as a “known religion”. The Orthodox Church, the Muslim and the Jewish religions are recognized as legal entities under public law.

Catholics:

The Catholic religion, though recognized as a “known religion” as prescribed by the Greek Constitution and according to the decisions of the Council of State, does not have a legal personality under public law. The notion of “known religion” is the constitutional presupposition for the official recognition of a religion in Greece that guarantees freedom of its practice. However, religious freedom, although constitutionally guaranteed, in many instances continues to be harassed in matters such as the respect of the citizens’ beliefs, the right of citizens to chose their religion and exercise it without being victims of intolerance and discrimination.

In 1830, the Third London Protocol dealt with the position of the Catholic Church in Greece. Under this Protocol, France, which had provided protection for Catholics during the Ottoman domination, relinquished its protection in the liberated Greek territories to the future sovereign of the emerging State. In addition, the Protocol allowed for a continuation of the Catholic Church’s rights and privileges such as free and public worship; guaranteed property-rights, retention of specific functions, rights and privileges for Catholic bishops that they had previously under the patronage of the kings of France; and, the recognition and respect for property that had belonged to former French missions or French establishments. Protocol No. 33 (1830), which followed, provided that the privileges enjoyed by the Catholics could not impose obligations on the Hellenic government, which might be prejudicial to the dominant religion. After the ratification of the 1923 Treaty of Treaty of Sèvres, which protected minorities in Greece, the prevailing opinion in Greek doctrine and judicial practice was to discontinue authority of the Third London Protocol. This, it is theorized, is the impetus for problems of the Catholic Church in Greece, in particular with respect to the official recognition of prelates, the creation of new dioceses, and so forth. Lastly, the See of Athens, dating from 1850 is not officially recognized, nor is the Catholic Archbishop despite the fact that the Catholic Church is a “known religion” in Greece.

On the subject of places of worship, in addition to the problem of legal recognition, the Catholic Church encounters numerous difficulties in obtaining building permits by reason of the Necessity Acts, which require from all denominations to obtain a permit for building places of worship (see below). In fact, the Orthodox Church is said to block or delay the procedure by exerting pressure on the Ministry of National Education and Religions. For example, at Aspra Spitia, for the church of St. Joseph, serving the Catholic workforce of the Péchiney factory, the local Metropolitan demanded of the Catholic Archbishopric in 1980 that Greek Uniate Catholics should never use the church. Following the refusal of the Catholic authority, the entire procedure for the building of the church was halted. Construction plans had to be amended and submitted to the Commission on the Construction of Orthodox Churches. It was only possible to make a start on building work one year later. The Ministry of Justice stated that the opinion of the local Metropolitan was not binding on the Ministry of National Education and Religions and recalled the established practice of the Council of State in that connection. In December 1997 the European Court of Human Rights convicted Greece for having denied a Catholic Church in Crete the status of judicial person. In the case of Canea Catholic Church v. Greece the Greek courts held that the Church lacked legal personality and therefore had no right to institute legal proceedings concerning the demolition of its surrounding walls. The Greek government claimed that the applicant Church had not ipso facto acquired a legal personality due to a lack of compliance with domestic legislation. The ECHR dismissed the government’s argument and held that such a formality restricted the Church’s “right to a court” and therefore constituted a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court, upon noting that no such restrictions are imposed on the Orthodox Church and the Jewish community, which are free to protect their property rights in court without any formality, held that Article 14 of the Convention was violated since “no objective and reasonable justification for such difference in treatment” existed. The Court also noted that it was not concerned whether the Catholic Church was a legal entity of public or private law, since this issue was a purely domestic one.^[38]

Posters are occasionally put up on the facades of Catholic churches by extremist Orthodox organizations. These posters include such forms of wording as: “Zionism, Papism, Turkey, Free Masonry make war on martyred Serbia. Greece alone offers resistance and sympathizes with the struggling Serbs”; “Communism is vanishing in the Orthodox States, in Eastern Europe, the Vampire of Rome (the Pope) is preparing to gorge himself.” Religious objects are sometimes the targets of vandalism. For example, the statue of Christ in the courtyard of the Cathedral of St. Denis in Athens was decapitated in February 1996.

On the subject of religious education within the school system, the private schools of the Catholic Church (12 Catholic schools with some 10,000 pupils, mainly of the Orthodox faith, and fewer than 1,000 Catholic pupils) teach the Catholic religion to pupils of that faith. In the State schools in the islands of Siros and Tinos, where 85 per cent of Greek Catholics live, Catholic teaching is also provided by priests or lay people. Problems are said to arise sometimes in connection with the creation of posts for Catholic teachers. Foreign religious personnel who do not come from the European Union reportedly also occasionally encounter obstacles in connection with entry visas and the renewal of residence permits.^[39]

Protestants:

As the Special Rapporteur notes in his report there is no legislative text concerning the Protestant faiths. They are legal entities whose institutions are considered as belonging to the domain of private law. In 1961, the Justice of the Peace of Katerini ruled that that Church constituted a legal entity under private law. The court of first instance of Katerini and the court of appeal of Thessaloniki decided, however, that the Evangelical Church had no legal personality. Finally, the Court of Cassation recognized the Evangelical Church as possessing legal personality under private law. However, difficulties sometimes arise in respect, on the one hand, of the exemption of ministers of religion from military service and, on the other, places of worship. With regard to ministers of religion, there have been reports of ministers of the Seventh Day Adventist Church being denied exemption by the Ministry of Defence because the Orthodox Church refuses to classify that Church as a known religion. Following legal proceedings, the Council of State or the Supreme Court, depending on the case, has confirmed the Seventh Day Adventist Church as a known religion and therefore entitled to have its clergymen excused from military service. However, according to the Ministry of Defence, these proceedings have to be instituted in every case, inasmuch as the court decisions recognizing the Church as a known religion have no effect in respect of third parties.

With regard to places of worship, applications by Protestant churches for building permits are said sometimes to be blocked because the Ministry of National Education and Religions in practice follows the negative opinion of the Orthodox Church. It is claimed that the only way to get permission to build a place of worship is to institute legal proceedings and obtain a decision from the Council of State, which is costly in terms of both time and money. With respect to applications for building permits for places of worship the Ministry authorized the construction of a Pentecostal Church despite the objection of the local Metropolitan. With regard to religious education within the school system, Protestants do not ask to have Protestant religious courses introduced, but choose instead to be excused from the Orthodox courses and to conduct religious education at home.

As we have seen according to the Constitution and the Necessity Acts, proselytism is forbidden and is punishable. Three Evangelicals, an American named Stephens, a Greek named Macris and an Englishman named Williams were sentenced in 1984 to three and a half years in prison for proselytism. The sentence was set aside on appeal in 1986 on grounds of insufficient evidence rather than on grounds of religious freedom. Three Evangelical Air Force officers were convicted of proselytism following a complaint filed by the Orthodox chaplain, who accused them of endangering the unity of the nation (see the Special Rapporteur's communication of 9 October 1992 and the Greek authorities' reply of 12 February 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79) and the supplementary reply of 8 August 1994 (E/CN.4/1995/91/Add.1).

Per reports of Ministers of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Ministry of Defense denies some members exemption status because the Orthodox Church refuses to classify the Seventh Day Adventist Church as a “known religion.” Following legal proceedings, the Council of State or the Supreme Court, depending on the case, has confirmed the Seventh Day Adventist as a “known religion” and, therefore, entitled to have its clergymen excused from military service. However, according to the Ministry of Defense, these proceedings have to be instituted in every case, inasmuch as the court decisions recognizing the Seventh Day Adventist Church as a “known religion” have no effect in respect to third parties.

Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses:

According to the decisions of the Council of State, the Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) is a “known religion” The Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses in Greece are officially recognized as a “known religion” as prescribed by the Greek Constitution and according to the decisions of the Council of State (nr. 2105 and 2106 in 1975). However, the Orthodox Church disagrees with this recognition and, in their decisions, the civil courts often share the view of the church. This results in difficulties in the context of national service, from which JWs ministers are supposed to be exempt.

Reportedly, the Ministry of National Education and Religions follows the position taken by the Orthodox Church and states the JWs community is not a “known religion.” The Ministry of Defense, which accordingly requires conscription from Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses ministers, echoes this thinking. The ministers challenged the decision in court; the Council of State confirmed its earlier decisions, recognizing the JWs as a “known religion.” However, the Public Administration does not draw any conclusions from these decisions and requires that the question be resolved each time in the courts. Legal proceedings are required in each case. In contradiction, JWs ministers were detained for refusing to complete military service (see Anastasios Tasos Georgiadis, Special Rapporteur’s Communication of 9 October 1992 [E/CN.4/1993/62];Dimitris Tsirus and Timotheos Kouloumpas v. Greece [Petitions Nos. 19233/91 and 19234/91]; Report of the European Commission of Human Rights of 7 March 1996). In 1997, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in both cases that Greece had violated the religious freedom of these three JWs’ ministers because it had refused to exempt them from military service.

With regard to applications for building permits for places of worship, the JWs encounter difficulties since they are denied permission or do not hear from the Ministry of National Education and Religions due to the opposition of the Orthodox Church. Often they have to resort to renting rooms which are used for religious ceremonies and finally as places of worship. However, in accordance with the Necessity Acts, these unauthorized places of worship are sealed off by the police and the persons in charge of them are convicted by the courts. Several cases reveal disturbing situations which the European Commission of Human Rights has described as violations of religious freedom (petition No. 18748/91, Titos Manoussakis and others versus Greece, report of the European Commission of Human Rights of 25 May 1995; petition No. 23238/94, Zizis Pentidis, Dimitrios Katharios and Anastassios Stagopoulos versus Greece, report of the Commission of 27 February 1996) and have been the subject of communications from the Special Rapporteur (case of the JW congregation of Gazi, in Heraklion, Crete; case of the head of the JW congregation in Alexandroupolis, Special Rapporteur’s communication of 3 November 1994, report E/CN.4/1995/91).

In certain localities there is discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses in the cemeteries. For example, in the local cemetery at Xanthi, a wall was built in order to separate the graves of the JWs from those of persons of other denominations. The metropolitan bishop is said to have demanded that the wall be built and the mayor acceded to the demand. The wall was eventually torn down in 1994 but the maintenance staff apparently do not tend to the graves of JWs. Thousands of JWs are said to have been arrested and to have served long prison sentences for proselytism in the past, though in the last years this is done less frequently. There are numerous examples of these violations of religious freedom, in particular the case of Kokkinakis, a Jehovah's Witness who was exiled six times, arrested more than 60 times and served five years in various prisons for proselytism.

The account of the situation of the Catholics and Protestants applies to the JWs as well, but their situation seems to be worse. Apart from the information given above concerning religious education, non-governmental representatives have reported that JWs children, who refuse to take part in events contrary to their religious beliefs, including national holidays and public parades organized in the schools, have been punished and even expelled. For example, in petition No. 21787/93, Elias, Maria and Victoria Valsamis versus Greece, report of the European Commission of Human Rights, the Commission found that there had been a violation of religious freedom in the case of a JW pupil suspended from school for a day by the principal because she had not participated in the school parade to mark the national holiday. At times, young Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses are allegedly victims of incidents of religious intolerance, such as verbal insults and physical attacks, by Orthodox pupils influenced by their teachers. Lastly, it seems that school textbooks continue to disseminate a negative image of the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite the efforts made in the case of other religions.

The forms of discrimination described in the case of Catholics and Protestants apply to the Jehovah's Witnesses as well (see, in particular, the cases of Pilaftsoglou, Tzenos and Nomidis, whose applications for teaching permits were rejected on the ground that they were JWs - Special Rapporteur's communications, E/CN.4/1994/79 and E/CN.4/1995/91).

The Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses of Greece have faced problems in education, professional orientation, and the exercise of their religious freedom, their refusal to serve in the army and to participate in national celebrations. A number of them have gotten multiple convictions for proselytism, conscientious objection, or the operation of “illegal” religious venues. These convictions are in violation not only of international instruments that Greece has signed but also in violation of national law and jurisprudence set up by the Greek courts. The JWs of Greece have challenged the malpractice against them at the European Court of Human Rights where they won all cases they submitted. As a result, the JWs enjoy a better position now and the state has shown signs of a new attitude towards religious freedom. The recent initiative of the government to abolish the entry of religion on the Greek identity cards is one of those signs. However, further steps towards the complete separation between the State and the Orthodox Church are still needed.^[40]

Jews:

In Greece, the legal status of the Jewish religion is guaranteed by a number of laws (L.2456/1920, L.F.367/1945, L.1675/1951, O.R. of 25 June 1951, D-L 01/106 9). Under a presidential decree, a Jewish community can be established in towns where more than five Jewish families reside. Such communities are legal entities under public law and are administered by an Assembly and Council, which are elected by their members. All Jewish communities in Greece are represented by the “Central Jewish Coordination and Consultation Council,” elected for three years by a general assembly composed of their special representatives. Following the Legislative Decree 7/10 May 1946, the Civil Code deals with family matters of Jews in Greece. All issues of family law for the Jews of Greece are governed by civil law and are resolved by state courts. Jewish communities can establish their educational institutions as long as the curricula do not impinge on internal legislation and provide Greek language classes, history, geography, mathematics and physics, which must be taught in Greek. The Jewish community chooses its Chief Rabbi who can be appointed after the approval of the Minister of National Education and Religions.

Muslims:

The Muslim minority is the only one that Greece has recognized officially as a religious minority, though many of its members want to be recognized as a national minority. The first relevant text concerning the Muslim minority of Western Thrace is the July 24^th 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Article 45 of the Treaty states “the right conferred by the present section on the non-Muslim minorities of Turkey shall be similarly conferred by Greece on the Muslim minority in her territory.” It guaranteed, inter alia, freedom of religion, equality before the law, the right to establish and control any charitable, religious and social institutions and schools, and full protection for religious establishments for the Turks of Western Thrace and the Greeks remaining in Istanbul. A second text addressing the Muslim minority is in the Constitution, in Article 5, Paragraph 2 (Protection of life and freedom without, in particular, any distinction on grounds of religious belief) and in Article 4, Paragraph 1 (Equality before the law). It is important to note here that though Muslims should enjoy all the guarantees of the Constitution and of any and all international treaties ratified by Greece, often and in particular regarding their freedom of religion and belief, the enjoyment of their rights is further determined by other conditions. Muslims “are further protected by the treaty of Lausanne of 1923, that has been considered as “Fundamental Law”, which should be interpreted to signify that neither Greece nor Turkey can enact legislation contrary to their obligations derived by this Treaty.”^[41] Consequently it is evident here that both states in the long run can downplay all other international instruments relating to minority rights in the name of a treaty that by far it has been superceded by contemporary international and human right law.

In addition to the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne, which provide that Muslims of Thrace shall be taught their own language and the Islamic religion, the Greek Government adopted a new law in October 1995. The provisions of the new law aim at upgrading the quality of the education afforded to Muslim Greek citizens in order to make it equal to that of all other Greek citizens. More precisely, economic and career incentives are offered to Christian teachers who are stationed in minority schools and at the same time efforts are made to improve the qualifications of Muslim teachers. Article 2 of the new law constitutes the keystone of this effort. Under this article, Muslim high school graduates are afforded preferential terms of admission to universities and technical institutes (affirmative action) as was the case before for other classes of Greek citizens (children of immigrants and repatriates). A quota and special examinations for admission to universities have been fixed in order to raise the educational level of the minority and to facilitate its integration in the social fabric of the country. However, in spite of these efforts, the bad quality of education that Muslim pupils receive in Western Thrace does not appear to have changed substantially.

The Muslim minority as we will see below is divided on two main issues: the election or appointment of the Mufti and the election or appointment of the committee that administers the property belonging to religious communities and charitable institutions (waqfs). As the Special Rapporteur explains in his report the status of the Muslim minority in Greece essentially appears to be both a political and a religious issue in which politics often makes a tool of religion. This has a real impact on the religious affairs of the minority, as demonstrated by the serious problems relating to the methods of appointing muftis or members of the committee for the administration of the waqfs and teachers of religion. The political relations between Greece and Turkey seem to be an essential factor in these problems. Each State is apparently in part responsible for the unsatisfactory status of the Muslims living in Thrace. Turkey considers them more as a political pawn that is recalled every time relations with Greece are tense, while Greece has not paid sufficient heed to the views of this community, the great majority of which lives marginally and in a parallel society with little real contacts and relations with the majority population. Consequently, a certain form of mostly implicit, but, in some cases even explicit, intolerance develops. At the same time Greece links the treatment of the Greek minority to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople. Both of them have reportedly been subjected to intolerance and discrimination.^[42]

Coexistence and dialogue between the Muslims and the Orthodox Church are said to be progressing in a satisfactory way, except the occasional interference by Turkish nationalist propaganda originating abroad and discriminatory policies of the Orthodox Church. In March 1999, the Church of Greece announced a monthly financial benefit only for Christian families living in Thrace with at least three children. It should be clarified that the government already provides special benefits for families with three children and over and that the church has a state sponsored budged for such acts, which when used should benefit all Greek citizens and not only those of the Orthodox denomination. However, the Orthodox Church adopted such a benefit only for Christian women and only for those living in Western Thrace to promote higher birthrate among Orthodox women and combat a supposed higher birth rate among Muslim women of Thrace.

4. Status of Legislation on Religious Freedom and Church-State Relations

- Is there in your country any special legislation on church-state relations in general or on some specific aspects of them?

Church-State relations in Greece are basically founded on the constitutional articles aforementioned since in Greece the Constitution is a fundamental law of the legal system. Laws that have appeared at particular moments when an issue required more specific legislation must conform to the principles established by the Constitution. Of course, since as we have already seen articles of the Constitution are contradictory, on the one hand supporting complete freedom of religion and belief and on the other setting conditions over this freedom, above all by naming the Orthodox Church as a prevailing religion, naturally all new laws establish their legality based on a quite ambiguous if not contradictory fundamental law. We have in the Constitution Article 3 paragraphs 1-3 (see above) which defines church-state relations and law 590/1977 “The Statutory Charter of the Church of Greece” (see above).

The relationship between the church and the state is characterized by an ambiguous symbiosis based on relations of autonomy and interdependence and where there are no clear lines drawing the parameters of the jurisdiction of one or the other. The State has the right to interfere in the affairs of the Orthodox Church by legislating on all administrative issues concerning the church, even those concerning its internal structure (based on article 72, par. 1 of the Constitution^[43]). As we have seen above the Church can give its opinions on any Church law proposal based on law 590/1977, however, the opinions of the Permanent Holy Synod have no binding force. In fact all acts of self-administration of the Orthodox Church are subject to state control (based on art. 26 par. 1 of law 590/1977) exercised by the Ministry of National Education and Religions, in particular by the General Secretariat of the Ministry and the Directorate of Other Creeds and Religions which is mostly responsible for issues concerning freedom of religion and belief. Also, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is charged with responsibilities concerning the various cults through the Directorate of Ecclesiastical Affairs, responsible for the supervision, study and recommendations for the resolution of all matters and affairs pertaining to the Orthodox and other Christian and non-Christian churches outside Greece, to the Orthodox Divinity schools and Ecclesiastic Centers outside Greece, to the clergy living abroad and to the Administration of Mount Athos.^[44]

- What is the status of these acts compared to other laws, e.g., are they “organic laws”, “special” vis-à-vis “general” laws, “ordinances”, “decrees” etc. depending on the type of the legal system?

Constitution and Mandatory laws or Necessity Acts.

- Is there any special governmental body responsible for any aspect of church-state relations? Does a government body supervise the exercise of any rights related to freedom of religion or belief?

The General Secretariat of the Ministry of National Education and Religions and the Directorate of Other Creeds and Religions of the same Ministry; Directorate of Ecclesiastical Affairs under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

- Please compare the guarantees and restrictions this special legislation provides for denominations with the guarantees/restrictions provided for in other laws with respect to freedom of manifestation of non-religious beliefs.

Religious, linguistic, ethnic and national minorities find themselves under similar scrutiny concerning guarantees and restrictions. In Greece one can easily say that minorities of any kind are more or less discriminated and legislation provides limited, if any, provisions for the freedom of manifestation of their identity. The manifestation of the identity of the majority, on the contrary, is defended by legislation which not only allows it to express itself freely, but it is considered almost natural any negative manifestation against identities which (allegedly) question the national and religious myths of the majority. In more legal terms however and more relevant to practice, as we have noted already, any discussion concerning the comparison between the guarantees and restrictions of legislation with regard to minorities, more particularly religious minorities, becomes irrelevant in light of the fact that legislation generally addresses the rights of individuals as citizens, who enjoy general rights in theory, which, however become limited if non-existent to the extent that they address particular identities of minorities.

- Please specifically address the issue of the jurisdiction of religious courts, if they exist.

The Eastern Orthodox Church of Greece has its own religious courts, which deal strictly with internal religious affairs of the Church, though often civil courts intervene on decisions taken by religious courts, given that the State can intervene and has control over all decisions concerning the administration and the internal structure of the Orthodox church.

In Western Thrace the Muftis have judicial competence that is “supplementary” and “preferential” over Greek citizens of the Muslim denomination living in Western Thrace, who can choose between civil courts and the Muftis. The Muftis are vested with the power to pass judgments on issues governing family law and the law of inheritance, based on Islamic Law. This is the case though article 8 of the Greek Constitution specifies, “Judicial committees or extraordinary courts, under any name whatsoever, shall not be constituted.” and art. 87, par. 1, clarifies that “Justice shall be administered by courts composed of regular judges who shall enjoy functional and personal independence,” and par. 2, “In the discharge of their duties, judges shall be subject only to the Constitution and the laws; in no case whatsoever shall they be obliged to comply with provisions enacted in violation of the Constitution.” Law 1920/1921 stipulates that Muftis are “recognized and tolerated by the Greek authorities as authentic interpreters of the Koran and the holy traditions of Islam.” However, it does not incorporate provisions for the procedure that will be followed, therefore, creating a lot of problems of legal procedure. Problems arise dealing with fundamental constitutional principles, “the respect and protection of the value of the human being” or “equality of all persons”. Were the courts to review the constitutionality of many of the Muftis’ decisions, very few of them should be judged as being in accordance with constitutional provisions since they are based on religious and not political principles.^[45] In the case of the Muftis, as another author notes, the jurisdiction in some cases goes beyond the constitutionally admissible limits in favor of a religious, in this case Islamic, state of law.^[46]

Though the decision of the Muftis cannot in principle become res judicata unless they are declared enforceable by the First Instance Court of the District, according to the provisions of the civil procedure, the court is not responsible for the substance of the decision, but the extent to which the Mufti made a decision within the limits of his jurisdiction.^[47] In addition the court may examine whether the decision is contrary to the constitutional provisions, something that political courts don’t do since they cannot in fact question the Mufti’s decision. An appeal can be made against the decision of the First Instance Court to a Court of Appeal. However, again as the Supreme Court argued in its decision 1723/1980 judges of civil courts are not entitled either to question the substance nor even the process of the Mufti’s decision since both are closely interdependent in the implementation of the Sharia. This implies that if the Mufti did not respect certain fundamental conditions for the realization of a just process with respect to constitutional provisions, then no other political court can intervene and question his decisions that are based on Islamic Law.^[48]

“The existence of a separate jurisdiction for the Muslims is regarded by many as an “anachronistic system”, and as an impediment to the minority’s social development. Part of the argument appears to have been utilized in a new bill recently approved by the Parliament. In an attempt to reconcile the century-old system of separate Muslim jurisdictions with the basic tenets of public order in Greece, Parliament ordered the courts not to enforce decisions of the muftis applying rules that violate the Constitution (Law 1920/1991, section 5 par 3). The new Law aims at ensuring the full equality of Muslim women and men, and it would be difficult to criticize it on this ground considered in isolation. However, a modern minority policy requires a more balanced approach.”^[49]

Yet, though section 5 par 3 has been added to ensure that civil court judges will examine more carefully the decisions of the muftis before they declare them enforceable, in most cases the examination of their constitutionality is superficial, either because most civil court judges have no knowledge of the Sharia or because the relation of the law that is being applied to the Constitution is not explicit by the mere reading of the Mufti’s decision.^[50]

- Special governmental body responsible for any aspect of church-state relations, government body supervising the exercise of any rights related to freedom of religion or belief.

The Ministry of National Education and Religions, and within it the General Secretariat of the Ministry that is responsible for the implementation of the governmental policy on religion. The General Secretariat is made up of three specific directorates: 1. Directorate of Ecclesiastical Administration responsible for issues concerning the Eastern Orthodox Church, like the implementation of the constitutional provisions, legislation on the organization and the administration of churches or o of lands to build or to renovate churches; 2. Directorate of Ecclesiastical Administration and Religious Instruction which is mainly responsible for preparing the budget of the General Secretariat of Religions and for appointment and status of the personnel of the religious education schools; 3. Directorate of Other Creeds and Religions which has two distinct offices a) dealing with different creeds and b) different religions. The former covers issues concerning all Christian Churches and it deals with the entrance of heterodox ministers and clergy to Greece, the establishment and operation of places of worship, of divinity schools and seminaries, all other legal entities of religious character and proselytism. The second office, deals with the same issues that concern however all non-Christian churches like the appointment and official status of Jewish rabbis and Muslim muftis.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and within it the Directorate of Ecclesiastical Affairs as we saw is responsible mainly for church-state relations and the exercise of rights related to freedom of religion outside Greece. Law No. 2594/1998 specifies that the Ministry of Foreign affairs is responsible for: monitoring of issues involving protection of human rights; education and religious issues of Greeks living abroad; relation of the State with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches, issues involving other Christian denominations, religions and international religious organizations and the civil administration of Mount Athos.^[51]

5. Incorporation and taxation

- How is the status of juridical person given to religious communities? Would they be able to function without this status?

All known religions in order to operate their ecclesiastical institutions and to own property ought to create legal entities, which must obtain the status of a juridical entity under private law. Religious communities may operate legally according to the provisions of the Civil Code without necessarily having obtained the status of known religion. A religious community may be identified as a known religion through indirect procedures i.e. by trying to establish a place of worship which obliges it to seek a permit from the special Directorate of Other Creeds and Religions in the Ministry of National Education and Religions; or, by operating such a place illegally and entering into legal proceedings which may lead to the acknowledgement by the courts that the specific community qualifies to operate such a place, hence it is indirectly recognized as a known religion.

However, at the same time a religion may be recognized by one court as a “known religion” while at another level, another court may refuse to adapt to that decision. For example, according to the decisions of the Council of State, Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses are a “known religion.” However, Greek civil courts have often taken the opposite view on this issue. There were also difficulties in the context of national service, from which JWs ministers were supposed to obtain an exemption. Reportedly, the Ministry of National Education and Religions followed the position taken by the Orthodox Church and stated that JW is not a “known religion.” This thinking was echoed by the Ministry of Defense, which accordingly decided to call up JWs ministers for service. The latter challenged that decision in court and the Council of State confirmed its earlier decisions, recognizing the JWs as a “known religion.”

The establishment of places of worship is based on law no. 1363/1938 adopted during the Metaxas Dictatorship (1936-1940) and amended by law no. 1672/1939. This law forbids the operation of new places of worship without a permit from the competent authorities, which until recently meant both the Directorate and also the Greek Orthodox Church. In the recent years state official argued that the opinion of the local Orthodox Metropolitan is no longer considered for issuing such permits. According to law 1672/1939 by proselytism is meant any direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious belief, with the aim to undermine those beliefs, either by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance, or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of his inexperience, or trust, need, low intellectual capacity or naiveté. If the act is committed in a school or other educational establishment or a philanthropic institution, it shall constitute a particular aggravating circumstance. The operation of places of worship without a permit involves imprisonment to up to 6 months and a fine. Also, the place of worship is closed and sealed off by the police. The Royal Decree of May 20/June 2/1939 imposed additional requirements for the operation of places of worship by all non-Orthodox denominations. These requirements are an application by 50 families in close proximity with each other and whose closes place of worship is at such a distance that the exercise of their religious rights is hindered; the application once signed by the applicant families and with their signatures confirmed by the police authorities must be submitted to the ecclesiastical local authorities; the police upon issuing a reasoned opinion, must forward the application to the Ministry of National Education and Religions. The Ministry can reject the application if it considers that the conditions of the law are not met or that the building of a new place of worship is unwarranted.^[52]

As the Special Rapporteur explains in his report in 1996, “Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that freedom of worship is reserved for “known” religions. This concept of “known” religion raises a number of questions because, although the concept is not defined in the Constitution, this provision relating to it limits religious freedom. This limitation appears to be inconsistent with article 1, paragraph 3, of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, which provides that “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” Indeed, article 13, paragraph 2, of the Constitution explicitly imposes such legal limitations (in respect of public order and morals) and applies them to all known religions.” The report further explains, “According to Greek legal practice and information supplied by the authorities, a “known” religion must have no secret dogmas and must not involve worship in secret. In the opinion of the Ministry of Justice, it must be a religion to which any person may adhere and it must be sufficiently transparent, so that it is possible to guard against religions that pose a threat to public order, morals and the rule of law. The absence of any constitutional, legislative or other definition of the concept of known religion would appear to contravene the 1981 Declaration and the legal limitations envisaged therein and therefore poses serious practical problems for religious minorities and for conscientious objection. Moreover, it should be noted that article 14 of the Constitution provides that the seizure of newspapers and other publications before or after circulation is allowed by order of the public prosecutor in case of an offence against the Christian religion or any other known religion. Accordingly, religions which are not “known” are not covered by this provision.”

Many religious communities in Greece function as associations i.e. Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses, all Protestant denominations, the Scientologists. However, in December 1997, a court, with hardly convincing evidence, violated freedom of religion in disbanding the Church of Scientology because of business activities inappropriate for an association; because the aims pursued by the church were alien to the nature and the substance of the human being as a free person; and to the morals and customs of the Greek people; and because it had allegedly engaged in proselytism and spying.^[53] According to the Greek Civil Code religious organizations may be juridical established pursuant to the Civil Code, either as associations (Article 78, et. seq.), as foundations (Article 108, et. seq.), or as charitable fund-raising committees (Article 122, et. seq.). Articles 78-81 of the Civil Code and Article 107 of its Introductory Code govern registration of associations. An application along with the Articles of Association must be filed at a court of first instance. The main requirements for the registration are to be covered by the statute of the association on which it will depend whether the registration will be admitted. In the description of its objectives if the religious community is not perceived as threatening to morality and the public order then the association will be registered. This does not qualify for a direct recognition as a known religion; it is an indirect recognition however. For example a religious community can register as an association, however, at a later point it can be dissolved if the association is considered to have an objective different than what was defined in its statute or when its objectives or operations come to be considered illegal and immoral or contrary to the public order. (Article 105) Therefore, religious communities can operate through associations without being yet recognized as a known religion, or they can become a known religion and operate also through an association or other cooperation, since that is the only form of juridical person status they can obtain in order to solicit funds and administer economic operations.

- What body grants juridical person status to religious communities? What body grants juridical person status to other organizations formed around non-religious beliefs (atheists, agnostics, etc.)? If there is a difference, how is it justified?

First instance courts provide the status of juridical person to religious communities, a status based on private law pursuant to the Civil Code. Only three religions in Greece have a juridical person status based on public law: the Orthodox, the Jewish and the Muslim. All others, in order to function in the context of some legitimacy, obtain eventually the status of a known religion, which does not provide them with a juridical personality under private or public law, but it allows them to worship freely, and to have a constitutional recognition. To obtain a juridical status most religious communities become associations or foundations or charitable fund-raising committees. However, minority religions that are classified as private entities cannot be represented in court as religious entities and cannot will or inherit property as religious entity. All other non-religious organizations obtain a juridical person status by simply applying to the appropriate first instance court pursuant to the Civil Code. The requirements are the same for all.

- Are some religious communities incorporated in different ways than other religious communities? How are these differences justified?

The Greek Orthodox Church is a legal person under public law but also it has the constitutional title of the prevailing religion. The Jewish and the Muslim religions are also legal persons under public law. However, both the Jewish and the Muslim religions require state permits to operate places of worship (while the Orthodox Church issues its own permits) and the Ministry of National Education and Religions must appoint their first religious representatives. Also, the Muslim religion and its rights and obligations are governed by the Treaty of Lausanne as seen above which is based on a political mutual agreement between two states, Greece and Turkey. All other religious communities are known religions and/or they operate as associations, foundations or charitable fund-raising committees regulated by the provisions of the Civil Code.

- Whatever the form of incorporation is there recourse to judicial control on decisions to grant or to refuse juridical person status? Please provide information on the mechanism.

A religious community that has sought to establish an association pursuant to the Civil Code, after it has been refused by the first instance court, it can make an appeal, then it can go to the Supreme Court and finally, once all local legal means have been exhausted, it can turn to the ECHR. On the other hand, a religious community that seeks to operate a place of worship, once the Directorate of Other Creeds and Religions has refused its application, it can go to the Council of State.

- Are there religious groups that have corporate status simply by custom? How effective is the use of this status compared to the status of the other groups?

N/A

- How are the churches taxed? Please compare the mechanism of taxation of religious organizations with that of other corporate bodies, especially those formed around deeply held non-religious beliefs (atheists, agnostics, etc.). Please also provide information on tax exemptions, if any, of donations to churches.

A discriminatory legal provision exists for all religious minority groups in Greece. It concerns the taxation by the Greek state of Churches and other non-profit organizations. A bill in February 1997, law n. 2459 on “the abolishment of tax exemptions” was passed, which created three new taxes with a property-tax exemption for only “public legal entities.” Public legal entities, churches, convents and recognized religious communities were exempt from being taxed for the properties they use, even though the majority of the Orthodox Christian bishoprics declared their immovable property. Since the Orthodox Church and the Jewish community have the status of “public legal entity” (under separate laws), they are the only religious institutions in Greece excluded from property-tax obligation. For the Muslims who are both a public legal entity concerning the Muftis but a private legal entity concerning the wafqs (Muslim property or endowments) find themselves in a similar situation with all other non-Orthodox religions. Leaders of some non-Orthodox religious groups expressed their discontent, stating that this was not the only discrimination they face. “All taxes are discriminatory, even though the Orthodox Church has to pay, since the Government subsidizes the Orthodox Church while other groups are self-supporting.”^[54] Besides the Orthodox clergy the government pays the two appointed Muftis who are civil servants with the salary of a general director. The Constitution and the laws relative to public servants regulate their obligations. The mufteia is a public service, thus it is relieved of any postal fees and it is obliged to use the Greek language in its documents, though the latter is not implemented and all religious documents are either in Turkish or Arabic.^[55]

A solution was found in the new taxation Law No. 2579/1998. Article 14 of this law reads: “the exemption does not only include the Orthodox Church but also covers the Roman Catholic Church and the other dogmas as well as the rest known religions according to the Constitution. This exemption is offered for any immovable property whether it is privately used or not and this regulation is passed for reasons of equal constitutional and taxation treatment.”

6. Manifestation of Religion in Worship, Observance, Practice and Teaching

- If there was confiscation of church property in the past, has it been restored to its original owners? To what extent?

There has been no confiscation of property owned by any religious denomination. However, there has been in the past expropriation of property owned by the Orthodox Church. During the Turkish occupation the Eastern Orthodox Church had accumulated significant property through donations, part of which was ceded legislatively to the state or given away by the monasteries. The monasteries agreed to give to the state part of their forest and farmland, while the government agreed to provide financial assistance to monasteries by using 1% of the total appropriation money for Church and monastic expenses.

- What is the mechanism through which churches acquire places of worship and other religious premises?

Concerning the construction of a church or other religious premises by the Orthodox Church it is required the authorization of the Orthodox Church of Greece (authorization based on art. 47 of the Statutory Charter of the Church). The permit is granted from the Office for Management of Church Property, which is known by its Greek acronym ODEP. For all other denominations this right is based on “the Mandatory Law 1363/1938 art. 1 as it was amended by Mandatory Law 1672/1939 art 1,” which states that “permission is given following a decision of the Minister of National Education and Religions based on the opinion of the Orthodox Church of Greece. The Ministry of National Education and Religions and after the Orthodox Church accepts its decision can permit a church (other than the Orthodox Church) to acquire and/or function religious premises.” More specifically “The Council of State, in its jurisprudence, stated that the Minister is not bound by the opinion of the Orthodox Church which is after all an advisory opinion. The decisive competencies lie with the Minister who issues the permission after the legal requirements are met.” These requirements are: “a) the religion must be a known one, b) its worship should not be against public order or morals, and c) it should not exercise proselytism.”^[56] When the Ministerial decision is not in accordance with the law, the Council of State can revise it. There have been such cases like with the Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Apostolic Church of Pentacost, or with the Catholics. However, these have been exceptions since many cases had to go as far as the European Court of Human Rights, which in the case of Manousakis and others v. Greece, 1996, condemned Greece for violation of art. 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and judged that “the system of issuing a license by the Minister is in accordance with art 9 of the ECHR, only in the context that its purpose is to secure the control by the Minister of the existence of the formal preconditions required by the Mandatory Law.”^[57]

- Have churches or believers suffered in the context of armed conflicts in the past ten years? In what way? Please describe all effects from these conflicts. Please, if relevant, include responses to this throughout each section of this document.

N/A

- Do people in your country have the right to adopt or change religions or beliefs? Is there a ban on Proselytism, i.e. attempting to convert people from one faith to another? Where is it provided for and what are the punishments?

An individual has complete freedom to change his/her religion or beliefs. The criticism and attacks are more likely to come from society in general, the Greek Orthodox Church if he is an Orthodox or his/her immediate community and family. However, under Article 13, Paragraph 2, of the Constitution, proselytism in general -- theoretically with respect to any religion -- is prohibited. This prohibition covers any known religion, including the Orthodox one, and it is punishable under Mandatory Law 1363/1938 as it was amended by Mandatory Law 1672/1939, concerning religious proselytism and the building of religious premises. The practice of proselytism is subjected to severe penalties: these include imprisonment of up to 5 years, fines, police surveillance, and the expulsion of foreigners. These laws were issued during the General Metaxas (1936-1941) dictatorship and reflect ideas and problems of the 40’s. According to Metaxas, the crime of proselytism is defined as any direct or indirect attempt to influence or alter the religious beliefs of others, in particular by fraudulent means or with promises of any type of material or moral gain. The Mandatory laws were originally intended to safeguard the provisions of the 1911 Constitution prohibiting Proselytism against the Orthodox Church. However, the 1975 Constitution does not draw such a distinction and it protects all religions from proselytism. In this light, these laws are outdated and should be deemed as such. A number of representatives of non-governmental organizations consider them as contradictory to the Constitution. The Special Rapporteur reiterated his remarks concerning proselytism and noted that in practice the religious freedom of the minority religious organization is severely undermined, given the manner in which proselytism is viewed. The Constitution does not define the concept of proselytism. According to the government, its purpose is to safeguard religious freedom while protecting people from “dangerous” religions. However, based on the answer of the Ministry of Justice to the UN Special Rapporteur (see above) this prohibition applies to proselytism in a negative way. The Mandatory Law, in section 2,2 provides a definition of proselytism on which many prosecutions have been based: “By proselytism is meant, in particular, any direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persuasion, with the aim of undermining those beliefs, either by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support of material assistance, or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of his inexperience, trust, need, low intellect or naïveté.” In Session 23.4.1975, the Minister of Justice had defined proselytism as “exclusively the violation of one’s conscience in an illegal, immoral or dishonest way.”^[58] The Special Rapporteur noted that proselytism, in itself, is inherent to religion, which explains its legal status in international instruments.

The following is an indicative example of violations of religious freedom under the laws against proselytism. Three Evangelicals, an American named Stephens, a Greek named Macris and an Englishman named Williams were sentenced in 1984 to three and a half years in prison for proselytism. The sentence was set-aside on appeal in 1986 on the ground of insufficient evidence rather than religious freedom. Three of the Greek Air Force officers who were Evangelicals were convicted of proselytism following a complaint filed by the Orthodox chaplain, who accused them of endangering the unity of the nation (see the Special Rapporteur’s Communication of 9 October 1992 and the Greek authorities’ reply of 12 February 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79) and the supplementary reply of 8 August 1994 (E/CN.4/1995/91/Add.1)). The ECHR condemned Greece in February 1998 for having unjustly convicted the three Protestants for proselytism of civilians. Also, in the case of Larissis, et al vs. Greece, which concerns members of the Pentecostal Church, the ECHR held that, inter alia, there was a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (hereafter called, the Convention) in respect of the measures taken against the officers for proselytizing civilians.

Many Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses have been arrested, convicted, and are serving prison sentences for proselytism. There are numerous examples of violations of religious freedom, in particular the case of Kokkinakis, regarding a Jehovah’s Witness exiled six times and arrested more than 60 times who served five years in various prisons for proselytism (Special Rapporteur’s communication of 9 October 1992, E/CN.4/1994/79; Kokkinakis v. Greece [3/1992/348/421] European Court of Human Rights). “In the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece, the ECHR held the conviction of a JW for proselytism to be incompatible with the European Convention for Human Rights. The court stated, “Art.9 refers only to freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief. In so doing, it recognizes that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary to place restrictions on this freedom in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone’s beliefs are respected.” As a number of constitutionalists in Greece have demonstrated in their texts, art. 2 of Mandatory Law 1672/1939, is contrary to art. 13 par. 2 of the Constitution.^[59]

Finally, one can always argue that religion classes in Greek public schools, though characterized as courses of Orthodox catechism and are therefore constitutionally tolerated, they in fact constitute a direct means of proselytizing young pupils. This is why in his annual 2001 report following complaints concerning religious education, the Ombudsman explains that the state’s obligation to exempt heterodox students from attending the course of religion is not limited to the “administrative” exemption and examination from this course, but it must extend to the full distancing of those students from the classroom. When these students remain in the classroom, given their malleability due to their youth, this could take even the dimension of state imposed proselytism, since it is de facto impossible the “abstention” of a minor from auditing during instruction that takes place in the same classroom.^[60] Once one takes into account that Greek students are considered ipso facto to be by birth Orthodox and that religion courses are “monophonic” and an obligatory enforcement of a particular faith rather than the presentation of religious beliefs, one can see how religion courses in Greek public schools are tolerated proselytism. In fact the issue of religion courses in public schools has been raised several times by eminent critics of the intermingling of the Orthodox Church in the educational programs of public schools.^[61]

- Do believers have the right to assemble in both public and private places to practice their religion? Is this right generally respected? Is it dependent on the state’s recognition/incorporation of the particular religious community? Do believers have access to sacred places of their religion at home and abroad? Are there special legal provisions regulating these rights for believers?

Pursuant to Necessity Act No. 1672/1939, superseding Necessity Act No. 1363/1938, a government permit issued by the Ministry of National Education and Religions is required for the construction or establishment of non-Orthodox places of worship. However, a permit must be at the request of no less than fifty families and must have an authorization by the local Orthodox Metropolitan (who is responsible for the affairs of the Orthodox Church in a particular area). Any church or place for religious assembly built and operated without authorization will be closed and put under authorization of the government. Those responsible for the “illegal” installation may be prosecuted, imprisoned, and required to pay a substantial fine. Non-governmental organizations monitoring religious freedom have argued that these acts have made the regime governing the practice of any “heterodox” worship even more rigid. Furthermore, the involvement of the Greek Orthodox Church --by virtue of its prerogative to issue an opinion that have legal standing in the authorization process-- in practice, often appears to create serious impediments to the exercise of religious freedom by the minority religions.

The Catholic Church is said to encounter numerous difficulties in obtaining building permits due to the Necessity Acts. The Orthodox Church has been accused of blocking or delaying the permit procedure by exerting pressure on the Ministry of National Education and Religions. For example, in 1980 the local Metropolitan at Aspra Spitia demanded conditions in the permit for the building of St. Joseph’s Church, which was planned to serve the Catholic workforce of the Pechiney Factory. These conditions required that Greek Uniate Catholics never use the new Catholic Church. Following the refusal by the Catholic authority, the building of the church was halted. Construction plans had to be amended and submitted to the Commission on the Construction of Orthodox Churches. Construction of St. Joseph’s resumed one year later. The Ministry of Justice stated that in this situation the opinion of the local Metropolitan was not binding on the Ministry of National Education and Religions, and recalled the established practice of the Council of State.

Moreover, building permits requested by the Protestant churches are sometimes blocked, because the Ministry of National Education and Religions, in practice, follows the rejection by the Orthodox Church. In fact until recently, the only way to obtain building permits for the construction of non-Orthodox churches is to institute legal proceedings and obtain a decision from the Council of State, which is costly in terms of both time and money. Thus with respect to applications for building permits for places of worship, Protestants are reportedly in the same position as the Catholics. Recently, however, the Ministry of National Education and Religions has authorized the construction of a Pentecostal Church despite the objection of the local Metropolitan. Indeed, in the late 1990s, the Ministry of National Education and Religions has been granting such permissions almost invariantly.

Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses encounter difficulties similar to those described in the case of the Catholics and Protestants. Since they are denied permission or do not hear from the Ministry of National Education and Religions due to opposition of the Orthodox Church, JWs resort to renting rooms for religious ceremonies and places of worship. However, in accordance with the Necessity Acts, the police seals off these unauthorized locations of worship and the courts convict the persons in charge. Several cases reveal disturbing situations, which the European Commission of Human Rights has described as violations of religious freedom (petition No. 18748/91, Titos Manoussakis and others versus Greece, report of the European Commission of Human Rights of 25 May 1995; petition No. 23238/94, Z.Pentidis, Dimitrios Katharios and Anastassios Stagopoulos versus Greece, report of the Commission of 27 February 1996) and have been the subject of communications from the Special Rapporteur (for example, Case of the JWs Congregation of Gazi, in Heraklion, Crete; Case of the head of the Jehovah’s Witness congregation in Alexandroupolis, Special Rapporteur’s Communication of 3 November 1994, Report E/CN.4/1995/91).

On 26 September 1996, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment on the case of Manoussakis et al v. Greece. In the judgment, Greece was convicted of breaching Article 9 of the Convention, and the applicants were awarded DRS 4 million (USD 16,500) for costs and expenses. The four applicants, Titos Manoussakis, Constantinos Makridakis, Kyriakos Baxevanis, and Vassilios Hadjakis, all JWs, had applied on 28 June 1983 to the Ministry of National Education and Religions for permission to use a room Manoussakis had rented in Heraklion (Crete) as a place of worship. The Ministry informed the applicants six times between November 1983 and December 1984 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.” In fact, the applicants had yet to receive an answer following the judgment of the European Court’ 13 years later. On 3 March 1986, the Heraklion public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants under laws No. 1363/1938 and No. 1672/1939 for having established and operated a place for religious meetings and ceremonies without authorization from the recognized ecclesiastical (i.e., the Orthodox Church) authorities and the Ministry of National Education and Religions. The applicants were at first acquitted. However, in February 1990, following an appeal by the prosecutor, each were sentenced to a three-month’ imprisonment, convertible to a pecuniary penalty and a fine of 200,000 drachmas ($830). The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants and’ in August 1991, they finally appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. On 20 September 1993, the police sealed up the room used as a place of worship by the applicants. In its defense, the Greek government referred to the Orthodox Church’s status as the national religion, and accused the JWs of proselytism and of using illegal means to spread the religion. The European Court severely criticized the Greek legislation for “allowing far-reaching interference by the political, administrative, and ecclesiastical authorities with the exercise of religious freedom” and for allowing the Minister of National Education and Religions the possibility to “defer his reply indefinitely or to refuse his authorization without explanation.” The Court noted that, in practice, these laws had helped the state “to impose rigid or indeed prohibitive conditions on the practice of religious beliefs by certain non-Orthodox movements” and adds that there is “a clear tendency on the part of the administrative and ecclesiastical authorities to use these provisions to restrict the activities of faiths outside the Orthodox Church.”

Concerning the Jewish community, the representatives announced their religious matters are without interference by the State and that they have sufficient places of worship and Hebrew schools. They mentioned some minor problems, which, in their view, are linked to the intolerance of certain poorly educated Orthodox priests. However, it seems that these incidents can be resolved through interfaith dialogue.

The Muslim community reportedly has at least 300 mosques in Thrace, but not one in Athens. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ratio of mosques to the Muslim population is higher in Thrace than the ratio of Orthodox churches to the Orthodox population. In addition, the authorities claim that no obstacles are raised to the construction or renovation of mosques in Thrace.

However, reports by non-governmental organizations demonstrate the contrary. Here is one example:

THE KIMMERIA MOSQUE CASE

PRESS RELEASE

1/1/1997

TOPIC: SPASMODIC ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ON THE KIMMERIA, XANTHI MOSQUE CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPRESSIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE MINORITY

Greek Helsinki Monitor and Minority Right Group-Greece studied carefully all available information on the problem related to the construction works carried out in the mosque of Kimmeria, Xanthi. They reached the conclusion that, irrespective of the possible real motives, the spasmodic actions of the administrative agencies leads one to suspect that the real problem is not the alleged building violations. On the contrary, it may seem that the aim is to (at least partially) repeal the initial license so that the mosque does not take the form desired by the Wakf Commission. It is probably a result of the opposition to such construction by some extremist Greek circles. In practice, there is unfavourable discriminatory treatment of the minority.

From the available evidence presented in detail below, we stress three points that contribute to the creation of such impressions. It is rare for Greece to use the in flagrante court procedure for an “arbitrary construction,” when the country is full of --usually legalized-- arbitrarily constructed buildings. The defendants were informed during the court hearings about the building license violations, and in fact without the required precision. Even the court recognized the inappropriateness of the procedure and decided to postpone the trial. The Secretary General of the Region used ex post facto the argument that the building license required the prior approval of the Bishop.

For that reason, our organizations:

· Call upon the Courts to acquit the defendants in the trial of 3/1/1997.

· Call all competent authorities, and especially the Secretary General of the Region and the Prefect, to secure the immediate continuation of the building works in the mosque. The building work should continue after they settle the problems in cooperation with the interested parties concerning the possible but certainly secondary violations. The form of the mosque designated by the Wakf Commission, especially the height of the minaret should be unaffected. GHM was told that this way the goodwill of the state will be confirmed, and the impression that administrative actions resulted from the reaction of extremists aiming at altering the form of the mosque will be dispelled.

The following are the facts ascertained by our organizations with our related comments:

On 11/9/96, the Xanthi Urban Planning Direction (UPD) issued the 248/96 building license for “an annex to a mosque (extension of ground floor and minaret).” It is noteworthy that the related application by the Kimmeria Wakf Commission (KWC) had been submitted one and a half year before (19/4/95) and that the license was issued ten days before the elections.

One month later, on 14/10/96, the related work started. At the same time, some local media and the Greek extremist circle started to react against the license and the height of the minaret (18 meters).

Two months after the issuance of the license, UPD “discovered” that a soil technical study should have been submitted for the minaret as the mosque was close to a torrent. Therefore, it asked for, through the 3095/14/11/96 letter to the KWC, the interruption of the works in the minaret above 7.5 meters before the submission and approval of that study. The first question arises here: why the state agencies had not asked for such a study during the one-and-a-half year they were deliberating on the application and, instead, granted the license?

One week later, with the 3164/22-11/96 letter, UPD informed KWC of its decision to interrupt building works “because of an ascertained violation.” It gave the KWC a 30-day deadline to bring additional information for the revision of the license. The second question arises here: why it wasn’t mentioned in this this document or in any other related or attached document that violation(s) had been ascertained? Is it not irresponsible, in such a serious matter, to take a decision without the appropriate explanations?

On the following day, with a new letter (D.Y./23-11/96), UPD partly revoked the interruption of the building works and allowed some works to secure the “static strength” of the building. Third question: why UPD changed its decision within one day? Had it so superficially forgetful when it was sending the first letter concerning the static strength of the building? Moreover, why is the second letter not signed by the competent director, but by his political head, the prefect?

One month later, the police was ordered to stop the works. It had arrested 23 persons present in the construction site and “taken them to court with the in flagrante procedure on 23 and 24/12/96, for “arbitrary construction with violations.”” During the arrests, according to what the defendants’ lawyer told us, there was at least one case of police brutality, against the Kimmeria Commune President Badak Husein, who has a related medical certificate. In the court hearings, however, it was proven only specifically on 24/12/96, after the testimony of the UPD director that the KWC was informed of the alleged building violations in very vague terms. It is for that reason that the court postponed the two cases for 3/1/97, so that concrete evidence could be brought to court by the UPD employees who were reported to have ascertained the violations. The fourth question arises: why was the in flagrante procedure chosen? It may be within the limits of the law but it has hardly ever been used for arbitrary constructions, something which Greece has plenty. Is it not unacceptable that even in court one month after they claimed to have ascertained the violations, the administration could not prove that there were violations with certainty and precision?

In a communication with us, UPD director V. Vertsonis told us that violations existed in the construction of a basement, a common roof and a common mezzanine (for the women’s section). None of these existed in the plans. However, the basement concerns only the central heating facility. For the roof and the mezzanine, it was decided to have one common for the whole mosque rather than keeping the old ones and some new ones would be built in the mosque’s extensions. If these are the violations, they are marginal and can be “settled.” Certainly, the KWC in good faith was unaware of the specific violations they were responsible for until the matter reached the courts.

In another communication with us, the Secretary General of the Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Region A. Lagos told us that, in disagreement with the UPD, the initial building license did not conform to the law. It lacked his approval as well as the agreements of the area’s Bishop and Mufti. We have to recall here that, however strange it may sound, the Mufti’s approval is not necessary. Besides, the Council of State has decided (decision 1444/28-1/1991) that the Bishop’s opinion is not binding for the administration; more recently, too, in a decision against Greece (case of Manousakis 59/1995/565/651/26-9-1996), the European Court of Human Rights stipulated that the related Greek legislation is incompatible with article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Anyway A. Lagos told us that he has ordered an internal investigation on the illegalities of the license so that those responsible would be held accountable. Our organizations believe that, had the problem been the negligence of the state agencies on these matters, the investigation should also seek out responsibilities for the improperly explained and spasmodic actions mentioned above which the state had allowed.

Finally, the statement of the spokesperson of the Greek Foreign Ministry K. Bikas surprises us. We hope that he made such statement only because he was being inadequately informed. He stated (27/12/96) incorrectly that in the initial building license “the minaret of the mosque was not included;” he created the impression that the real problem is the minaret and its height. We also regret the fact that the media did not seek out the real facts and limited themselves to more or less similar articles, which mentioned the matter as a simple and unquestionable case of arbitrary construction and for some media, it was another “provocation from Ankara.” The minority appears embarrassed from the actions of the administration. This attitude from the media does not help the effort to integrate the minority into the Greek society equally before the law.

--------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (8/1/97)

On 3/1/97, in the two trials, the court convicted the Kimmeria imam twice to four-month prison sentences (total eight months) and 17 other minority workers to 35-day sentences each. They were all set free on appeal.

The same day, the Bishop of adjacent Komotini sent a inflammatory public letter to the Prime Minister protesting that a 16-meter minaret was to be built in Pelekiti (Rodopi), despite his disagreement, which was based on the fact that the church in the neighboring village Amaxades had only a 12-meter bell-tower. He also called for a protest rally in Amaxades on 8/1/97, which took place without any incidents.. The impression that the height of the minarets is the problem was confirmed by this action of the Bishop.

--------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (September 1999)

In mid-1997, upon an oral directive, the minority was allowed to finish the works in the mosque, except for the minaret. This underscored the political nature of the stop order; especially no “technical soil study” was requested by that oral order.

--------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (September 2002)

In mid-2002, the minority was finally allowed to complete the minaret as well.

The authorities and some non-governmental representatives have acknowledged that incidents (arson, criminal acts) have been directed against places of worship, for instance in Alexandroupolis (for a report on the situation, see the Special Rapporteur’s Communication, E/CN.4/1995/91.). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized that these acts were committed by fanatics and were isolated and sporadic incidents. The State reportedly redressed the matters by paying for repairs and renovations (see the reply of Greece of 23 May 1995, E/CN.4/1996/95). Some non-governmental organizations also believe that these manifestations of intolerance are the result of isolated acts of provocation by extremists and should not be over-dramatized. The same applies to cases in which cemeteries were desecrated.

- Do religious communities have the right to establish and maintain charitable and humanitarian institutions? How are these institutions established? Are these rights generally respected?

The Orthodox Church and the Jewish and Muslim religions are the only religions considered by the Greek state to be a “legal person of public law.” All other religions are considered to be a “legal person of private law.” This means according to Greek law that these religions cannot, as religious entities, own property; the property must belong to a specifically created legal entity rather than to the church itself. In practice this does not only place an additional legal and administrative burden on all non-Orthodox religious minorities but in addition all associations, charitable or humanitarian organizations established by minority religious groups that are classified as private entities cannot be represented in court as religious entities and cannot will or inherit property as a religious entity.

For the Muslim minority, in addition to the mufti, appointed in accordance with the decree of 25 December 1990, there is a committee that administers the waqfs, property belonging to religious communities and charitable institutions within its district, which function as juridical entities under private law. According to information provided, Act No. 3345/1920 stated that the members of that committee were to be chosen through elections held within the Muslim community. This provision was abolished under the dictatorship and replaced by a current procedure for appointing the members of the committee. The Muslim minority of Thrace is once again divided over the legislation concerning the waqfs. The arguments of each side correspond to those put forward in the context of the legislation concerning the muftis. The disagreements also have practical implications for the Muslim minority in the religious field.

The Special Rapporteur noted that in practice there is a difference of opinion within the Muslim community vis-à-vis the authorities concerning the procedure of selecting members for the committee for administration. During the Special Rapporteur’s visit, protest demonstrations took place, demanding that the members of the committee should be elected. Also during the demonstrations, the miserable condition of the waqfs was denounced.

- Can religious communities visit hospitals, prisons and charitable institutions? Do they have access to army personnel?

Generally non-Orthodox religious communities are not welcome to visit hospitals, prisons, the army, public schools and all public institutions. Since it is widely considered that the people they will address are Orthodox, any such visit, even if it is not meant for proselytism, is seen with suspicion and it is generally forbidden. Exceptions may be made for non-Orthodox clergy who want to visit foreign prisoners of their own denomination; however, even in those cases permission is not always granted. This refusal is based on Law No. 1851/1989 (Basic Code of Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners), Article 44, paragraph 1, which refers to visits of religious ministers to prisoners of the same denomination. In contrast, representatives of the Orthodox Church are able to visit at any time any public institution they choose to do, and in fact such visits are quite frequent even under circumstances whose objective may not be always in conformity with the principles of a secular state of law.

- Do religious communities have the right to make, acquire and use all the articles and materials they need for the rites or customs of their religion? Do they have the right to follow practices required by their religion (e.g. refuse to send people to certain schools, refuse blood transfusions, etc.)? Are these rights generally respected?

Generally non-Orthodox religious communities do not face particular limitations concerning worship of their religion. However, non-Orthodox communities confront generally important restrictions as to the issuance of permits for the establishment of places of worship. All religious minorities at some point have to take their case to courts and often even then they may not be able to establish legal places of worship. In the case of the Muslims while their community is constantly growing due to the high inflow of new immigrants who are Muslim, throughout Greece there are only mosques in areas where there are traditional Muslim communities – Western Thrace and on the islands of Kos and Rhodos. In addition, Muslims have no places anywhere else in Greece but in Western Thrace where they can burry the dead. Most Muslim immigrants who die anywhere else but where traditional Muslim communities reside, they have only the possibility of either having the body shipped back home (which is generally very costly) or making arrangements to be buried in Western Thrace, something slightly less costly but not necessarily evident for many of them who have little or no contact or even knowledge of the traditional Muslim community of Greece.

Medical Treatment:

One of the ambiguous issues emerging from the diverse and opposed principles concerning human life and the rights upon it concerns the issue of blood transfusions under emergency conditions on patients who are JWs. As Professor Naskou-Peraki explains, in Greece any person has the right to refuse medical treatment under article 330 of the Penal Code. However, in cases of emergency (art. 25 of the Penal Code), when the patient is in critical condition and will die unless operated and/or given blood transfusion, the doctors may proceed without the consent of the patient or even the family. In such a case where the patient was a JW who was successfully saved after an operation and blood transfusion, the patient sued the doctors before the Penal Courts. However, the doctors who operated on her were judged innocent under the penal law.

Another such example is that of a child whose parents refused to permit a surgical procedure. “With the procedure of the provisional remedies, the Public Prosecutor filed a request for a provisional order to the First Instance Court, which in its judgment states that ‘in emergency situations, the Court, under the procedure of provisional remedies, substitutes the lack of consensus of the parents…’” (First Instance Court of Thessaloniki No 3087/1979). “In its advisory opinion to the President of AHEPA Hospital, the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki stated among others that: ‘…when the doctors face a severe danger threatening the life or the health of the patient, they have to operate immediately…’” (Advisory opinion No 2692/13.3.1991).^[62] In all such cases Greek law gives precedence to the right of life as against the right of respect of one’s religious beliefs.

It is important to note here that Greece does not implement the same principle in the case of Muslims of Western Thrace, where Muftis appointed by the Greek state on issues of family and inheritance law have preferential judicial competence, allowing them to pass judgments based on Islamic Law, the Sharia. The implementation of Sharia violates law no 1329/1983 that abolishes the status of men as “leaders of the family” and establishes complete equality among men and women on family and economic issues, which translates in the Constitution by Article 4, “1. All Greeks are equal before the law. 2. Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations.”

In this case the main victims are women and children who generally have no equal rights and no rights of self-determination in Muslim societies. In principle Greek courts can review the decisions of the Muftis for their constitutionality (Law 1920/1991 section 5 par 3), however, in most cases this possibility remains unexploited. Of course all Muslims of Western Thrace have the choice of turning to the civil courts, however, the majority of the population resorts to the Muftis. Therefore, one can observe here the violation of a fundamental right as defined by the Greek Constitution and international instruments Greece has signed and ratifies which guarantee the equality of persons, and yet the Greek state is far from considering the re-evaluation of the empowering of religious leaders with judicial powers in a secular state of law.^[63]

It has been recently reported that polygamy is still allowed, even though it is a crime punishable by article 356 of the Greek Penal Code. A 55-year old Muslim man wanted to marry his wife’s 15-year old niece: he had the support of his wife, the mufti, and apparently the region’s (Thrace) Appeals Court. “‘Marriage is an institution that comes under their religion which should solve whatever problems emerge,” … said to the daily Ethnos^[64] a prosecutor of the Appeals Court of Thrace. In a related story, it has been reported that a state pension agency (TEVE), on the instructions of the mufti of Komotini, divided the pension between the two widows of a deceased Muslim. The mufti’s spokesperson insisted that Greece must respect Islamic law in matters related to religion, like marriages. In at least two known cases the penal court considered that bigamy is not an offence and recognized the validity of Sharia, based on the argument that the corresponding passage of the Koran (Chp. 4, maxim 3) in combination with article 4 of law 14/1914, overrules the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and of the Greek public order.^[65] Even some leading Greek academics find these practices acceptable. For example, for the Professor of Penal Law at the University of Salonica John Manoledakis, there is no conflict between laws. As he explained in an interview, “since Islamic law allows bigamy, the unjust –for us- character of the act is cancelled.” This situation is tolerated by the Greek administration and judiciary and most Muslim women who are living in Western Thrace do not choose to turn to Greek courts, because of social pressure, conditioning and fear.^[66]

With the application of Sharia law by the Mufti, which is often ratified by civil courts despite the conflicting Greek constitutional provisions and international obligations of Greece, Muslim women are entitled to only half of their husband’s inheritance; may see their husband take another wife, as long as they “agree”, since polygamy is allowed; divorces without culpability are only issued by men against the women, in most cases, without the women even being summoned; women receive alimony only for 100 days and only when they can prove that the divorce was based on the man’s culpability; they may have custody of their children only until the age of seven (boys) or age nine (girls), which then passes automatically to the father or grandfather –if not granted to them from the beginning.

As K. Tsitselikis notes, courts which decide upon the implementation of the Mufti’s recommendation should be able to examine not only whether it respects his jurisdiction but more importantly whether it contradicts the morality and public order founded on the principle of equality. The question is whether the Mufti’s decision negates the guarantees for a fair trial provided by article 20 of the Greek Constitution, article 6 par. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 14 par. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.^[67] In this case the judges of the civil courts have the power ex officio to examine whether human rights rules deriving from international law have been respected.^[68]

The National Commission for Human Rights recommended last year the following: “In reality, it is at least bizarre that in 21^st century Greece Sharia law continues to be applied in deviation to provisions of the Greek civil code, when such a thing does not exist neither in Turkey nor in various other Muslim countries. The abolishment of the judicial and administrative responsibilities of the Mufti and the restriction of his responsibilities to religious ones, is, in our opinion, an imperative measure for the modernization of the institution, in view of the binding terms of article 20 of the Greek Constitution (right to legal protection) and article 6 of the ECHR (right to a lawful trial). The awareness of political judges is suggested…as to the contrast of the practice of judicial responsibilities by the Mufti, with the Constitution and the ECHR, with whatever means the leadership of the Supreme Court finds appropriate.”^[69]

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed its concern that: “with regard to the separation of some Muslim parents, custody of children below a certain age is systematically awarded to mothers and custody of children above a certain age is systematically awarded to fathers, without due regard to the best interest and opinion of the child.”^[70]

- Do religious communities have the right to write, issue and disseminate publications related to their religion? Is this right generally respected? Please compare the mechanism with which religious communities exercise this right with that of organizations formed around deeply held non-religious beliefs (atheists, agnostics, etc.).

Generally non-Orthodox religious communities do not face any problems by the official authorities in the publication and dissemination of religious publications in so far as such publications may not be considered contrary to morality and the public order. Problems may occur if confronted by Orthodox religious vigilance groups that are very dogmatic and often aggressive towards non-Orthodox communities. This is why most non-Orthodox religious communities try maintaining a low profile within the Greek society. Non-religious organizations generally are confronted by similar conditions, which are based on article 14 of the constitution and all respective laws guaranteeing freedom of expression.^[71]

- Do religious communities have the right to teach their religion in appropriate places? Is this right respected in practice? Please provide details on the mechanism. Please do not duplicate information given in Section 8 (on religious education).

Non-Orthodox religious communities have the right to teach their religion to members of their community in all non-public places which are officially recognized for that purpose. Some religious communities have even their own private schools like the Muslims, the Jews and the Catholics where courses of religion may be included. On the other hand, many non-Orthodox religious communities have complained that they are subjected to the proselytism of the Orthodox Church, which permeates the public school system.

- Do religious communities have the right to solicit and receive financial and other contributions from individuals and institutions?

All religious communities may solicit and receive financial and other contributions from individuals or institutions, however, not as religious entities but as legal entities of private law, that is, as associations, charitable or humanitarian institutions. As such, based on Law 2459/1997 on the abolition of tax exemptions and other provisions, all non-profit legal entities, including those formed by religious communities, are taxed for contributions they receive and property they own. Religious communities have requested to be exempted from this, as is the Greek Orthodox Church, which is a legal entity of public law. A solution was found in the new taxation Law No. 2579/1998. Article 14 of this law reads: “the exemption does not only include the Orthodox Church but also covers the Roman Catholic Church and the other dogmas as well as the rest known religions according to the Constitution. This exemption is offered for any immovable property whether it is privately used or not and this regulation is passed for reasons of equal constitutional and taxation treatment.”

It should be added however that, after a decision of the Council of State on February 1998, only parishes of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Greece could be eligible to receive donations of property by local municipalities or communities. The issue was raised in the case of the Church of the Original Orthodox Christians, (the Old Calendarists) who were not able to accept a donation made by a local municipality.

- Do religious communities have the right to train, appoint, elect or designate by succession, leaders who fulfill the requirements and standards of their religion? Is this right respected in practice? Please describe the way this is done by different religious communities (e.g. by election, by appointment, etc.).

Greek legislation originally provided for a procedure for electing the muftis in accordance with Article 11 of the 1913 Treaty of Athens. The relevant provision of the Treaty subsequently became part of the Greek domestic legislation by virtue of Act No. 3345/1920, adopted by Greece in 1920. These provisions, however, have not been implemented, a result of the exchanges of Greek and Turkish populations in 1922 and the conclusion of a new agreement, the Treaty of Peace signed at Lausanne in 1923. Law 1920/1991 and the Act of 24.12.1990 abolished the legal procedure for the election of the muftis, in favor of a nomination procedure.

A committee, chaired by the Prefect and composed of an additional ten religious leaders and eminent Greek-Muslim citizens appointed by the state, is responsible for proposing to the Minister of National Education and Religions a list of qualified persons. These candidates must have a university degree from a school of advanced Islamic studies, whether Greek or foreign, or be persons who have performed functions as an imam for at least 10 years and have distinguished themselves by their moral and theological competence. The Minister then has the final decision that is based of the personal qualifications of the candidates. A Presidential Decree adopted on the recommendation of the Minister of National Education and Religions finally appoints the mufti.

The mufti may be relieved of functions by presidential decree following the request of the Minister of National Education and Religions, in the following cases only: (i) final sentences for a crime or offense as provided for in Article 22 of the State Civil Service Code; (ii) deprivation of civil rights, for whatever reason; (iii) illness preventing him from performing his functions, professional incompetence, dishonorable conduct, or conduct incompatible with his rank and functions.

The Muslim minority of Thrace appears to be divided with regard to the procedure for the choice of muftis. Some Muslims consider that the 1990 decree interferes with their own choice for religious representation and that it leads to a biased appointment of the authorities. For the Muslim community, a desired alternative would be for an election by indirect universal suffrage involving prominent Muslims and Muslim officials (about 200 to 300 people). They recall the earlier legislation concerning a similar election process of the muftis, and also refer to tradition and practice, in particular the election of Mr. Mehmet Emin Aga and Mr. Ibrahim Serif as muftis in mosques at Xanthi and Komotini on 17 August and 24 December 1991. These elections took place despite the opposition of the Greek State, which had appointed two other muftis. However, other Muslim communities and the Greek authorities point out that in countries where Islam is the dominant religion (i.e., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey), it is common practice for the head of the religious hierarchy to be appointed by the State. Moreover, in Greece, since muftis have judicial functions that extend to family law and the law of succession, to appoint them through an election would jeopardize the fulfillment of the provision in the Constitution (Art. 8) stating that judges shall be appointed in accordance with the law. It would also compromise the principle of the independence of judges, both individually and in the exercise of their office, since it creates a situation of political patronage.

The government’s argument that in no other countries are the muftis elected, even in regions with Muslim majorities and undemocratic regimes, is misleading. There are a few cases in which the opposite is true. It is well known that in the two neighboring countries with Orthodox Christian majorities, Bulgaria and Macedonia, muftis are elected. In December 1998, Belgian Muslims elected their representatives. Moreover, regarding the government’s claim that muftis in Greece also have judicial responsibilities, the Muslim community responded that it is ready to see them removed if they are the obstacles to their election.

To the entire Muslim minority of Thrace, this dispute over the procedure for selecting the muftis has repercussions and it is considered to be prejudicial; it is one factor preventing any serious approach to the problem of the Thracian Muslims. The Muslims who favor the method established in 1990 of nominating and appointing muftis -- it seems to be only a few people -- reportedly are being or have been subjected to pressure from Turkey. These Muslims actively favor the unofficial muftis and they are apparently prohibited from entering Turkey. On the other hand, Turkish theologians invited by the unofficial muftis are said to have denied entry to Greece. Some of the Muslims of Turkish descent reject the identification as Greeks and they claim to be Muslim Turks.

The division within the Muslim minority over the procedure for the selection of the muftis seems to have a serious impact on the conduct of religious affairs. In practice, following an election by a show of hands held in the mosques in 1991, Mr. Mehmet Emin Aga in Xanthi and Mr. Ibrahim Serif in Komotini are acting muftis for the Muslim community (for a summary of the Aga case, see the Special Rapporteur’s communication, E/CN.4/1992/52). However, they are not recognized by the Greek authorities, which appointed two other muftis pursuant to the 1990 decree. Moreover, Mr. Aga and Mr. Serif were convicted of usurping the title and, in particular, of illegal signing documents. Mr. Aga was sentenced to 10 months in prison; he was imprisoned but received an early released for health reasons and after payment of a fine. This situation was not without its consequences within the Muslim community, which has been deeply divided by these events, as evidenced by the attendance at places of worship and participation in the celebration of religious holidays. Thus, it seems that relations between the Muslim-only elected muftis and a significant portion of the Muslim minority are very limited. Very few Muslims are present to hear their sermons. At times, the muftis are even prevented from entering the mosques. Hence, the rules concerning the procedure for the appointment of muftis are of paramount importance. (Mr. Serif was convicted in October 1996 to six months in jail, but was released on bail pending an appeal that was heard by the European Court of Human Rights in early 1999)

Mehmet Emin Aga’s prosecution is a serious violation by Greece of an individual’s fundamental human rights. Aga was unofficially elected Mufti of Xanthi in August 1990. In August 1991, the Greek government applied the new 1990 “appointment” law, replacing the 1920 one that called for elections of muftis. The government appointed Emin Sinikoglu as Mufti of Xanthi. Aga has been charged with violation of Article 175.2 of the Penal Code on account of Aga issuing 33 messages to Muslims on religious holidays and signing the letters as “Mufti of Xanthi.” The First Instance Courts found Aga guilty and sentenced him to 112 months imprisonment, which, following an appeal was later, reduced to 70 months. Aga has spent six months in prison and then, due to poor health, he was able received an early release, which came with a considerable fine.

In February 1998, Amnesty International stated Greece violated international legislation that safeguards the right to freedom of expression in its sentencing Mehmet Emin Aga to imprisonment solely for his peaceful exercise of this right. (The following is the complete report of the prosecution of Mehmet Emin Aga through the mid-1999). Only from 2001 onwards, courts started acquitting M. E. Aga.

THE DOSSIER OF THE PROSECUTION OF MEHMET EMIN AGA

Charges in all cases: Violation of Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Greek Penal Code forbidding “Assuming without justification the exercise of the function of a clergyman of (...) religion known in Greece.”

Evidence in all cases: Signing as Mufti religious messages to Muslims on the respective

dates.

Summary: Prison sentences in cases 1-7: 107 months at the First Instance level; 69 months at the Appeals level. Cases 8 and 9 are pending at the Appeals level (12 and 7 months respectively at the First Instance level).

CASE 1:

Evidence: Messages released on five different Islamic holidays on January 11, April 19, 1993 and January 3, January 19 and February 10, 1994.

First Instance Court: June 28, 1996; Single-Member Criminal Court of Agrinio.

Outcome: Guilty verdict for two cases combined in one trial. Sentenced to 20 months in prison.

Appeals Court: April 29, 1998; Three-Member Criminal Court of Agrinio.

Outcome: Guilty verdict upheld. Sentence reduced to six months in prison. He bought off the sentence.

Supreme Court: Case pending.

CASE 2:

Evidence: Message released on an Islamic holiday on February 17, 1993.

First Instance Court: April 12, 1994; Three-Member Criminal Court of Xanthi.

Outcome: Guilty verdict. Sentenced to10 months in prison.

Appeals Court: January 24, 1995; Criminal Court of Larisa.

Outcome: Guilty verdict and sentence upheld. Mehmet Emin Aga spent six months in jail and bought off the remaining four months (he was released due to serious health problems).

Supreme Court: Appeal rejected.

CASE 3:

Evidence: Messages released on eight different Islamic holidays on March 6, April 1, May 15, August 5, August 14, November 22, December 24, 1994 and January 9, 1995.

First Instance Court: May 7, 1996; Single-Member Criminal Court of Salonica.

Outcome: Guilty verdict. Sentenced to 12 months in prison.

Appeals Court: November 5, 1998; Three-Member Criminal Court of Salonica.

Outcome: Guilty verdict upheld. Sentence reduced to eight months. He bought off the sentence.

Supreme Court: Case pending.

CASE 4:

Evidence: Messages released on six different Islamic holidays on August 8, May 3, November 11, November 13, December 30, 1995, and January 17, 1996.

First Instance Court: April 3, 1997; Single-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict for two cases combined in one trial. Sentenced to 20 months in prison.

Appeals Court: February 25, 1998; Three-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict upheld. Sentence reduced to 14 months in prison. He bought off the sentence.

Supreme Court: Case pending.

CASE 5:

Evidence: Messages released on four different Islamic holidays on February 11, February 17, April 22 and July 25, 1996.

First Instance Court: November 6, 1997; Single-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict for three cases combined in one trial. Sentenced to 22 months in prison.

Appeals Court: June 24, 1998; Three-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict upheld. Sentence reduced to 14 months in prison. He bought off the sentence.

Supreme Court: Case pending.

CASE 6:

Evidence: Messages released on four different Islamic holidays on June 28, July 25, November 8 and December 1, 1996.

First Instance Court: December 11, 1997; Single-Member Criminal Court of Lamia .

Outcome: Guilty verdict for two cases combined in one trial. Sentenced to 16 months in prison.

Appeals Court: January 27, 1999; Three-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict upheld. Sentence reduced to 12 months in prison. He bought off the sentence.

Supreme Court: Case pending.

CASE 7:

Evidence: Message released on an Islamic holiday on January 7, 1997.

First Instance Court: May 28, 1998; Single-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict. Sentenced to seven months in prison.

Appeals Court: January 27, 1999; Three-Member Criminal Court of Lamia.

Outcome: Guilty verdict upheld. Sentence reduced to 5 months in prison. He bought off the sentence.

Supreme Court: Case pending.

CASE 8:

Evidence: Messages released on two different Islamic holidays on January 30 and December 21, 1997.

First Instance Court: March 24, 1999; Single-Member Court of Seres.

Outcome: Guilty verdict. Sentenced to twelve months in prison.

Appeals Court: Case pending.

CASE 9:

Evidence: Messages released on two Islamic holidays on April 11 and July 7, 1997.

First Instance Court: December 14, 1998; Single-Member Criminal Court of Larisa

Outcome: Guilty verdict. Sentenced to seven months in prison.

Appeals Court: Case pending.

Mr. Serif, elected by his worshipers in Komotini on December 28, 1990, initiated proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights, challenging the legitimacy of Muftis being appointed by the Minister of National Education and Religions (Case Serif v. Greece, Application No. 38178/1997). The Court found that Greece has violated art. 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (freedom of religion, freedom of consciousness and freedom of thought.) According to ECHR, punishing a person who acted as a religious leader for a group of people who willingly followed him was not compatible with the demands of religious pluralism in a democratic society. Even though the Court recognized that the Muslim community had become divided and there was some tension, nevertheless, it argued that the role of the authorities is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other. In light of the above opinion, the court held that the applicant’s convictions was not justified by “pressing social need” now was it “necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public order.”

Regarding the special provisions concerning muftis and waqfs, the Special Rapporteur recalled Article 6, Paragraph (g), of the 1981 Declaration that guarantees freedom to “train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief.” The Special Rapporteur believes it necessary for the Greek authorities to comply fully and in good faith with the Treaty of Lausanne and with the country’s international undertakings. He also recalls the need to refrain from interfering in the affairs of a religion, apart from the restrictions provided for in international law, and calls for respect for the traditions of each religious group within the framework of internationally recognized norms. The Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the status of the Muslims of Thrace, and in particular that of the muftis and waqfs, should not be subordinated to considerations concerning Turkey, and he strongly urges the parties involved to comply with their international undertakings, especially the Treaty of Lausanne.

As the UN Special Rapporteur notes that the Jewish community, each includes a rabbi who is proposed by the community and then appointed by presidential decree. There is also a council of rabbis that acts as a religious tribunal. The Civil Code (1946) revoked the council’s civil jurisdiction but it continues to exercise competence over Jews who are not Greek citizens and to pronounce the spiritual dissolution of marriages for which the civil court has granted a divorce.

The Vatican appoints Catholic bishops in Greece like elsewhere.

- Do believers of different religious communities have the right to observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and ceremonies (or to refuse to celebrate official holidays and ceremonies) in accordance with the precepts of their religion? Is this right respected in practice?

Non-Orthodox religious communities can observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and ceremonies to the extent that they don’t interfere with their obligations that are determined by their coexistence with an Orthodox majority. A significant development since 1968 was the permission given by the Holy See to Greek Catholics to celebrate Easter at the same time with their Orthodox Christian. Generally for traditional religions the Greek state provides the possibility of observance of their religious rites and celebrations, for new religions things are always more difficult to determine. Religious rites, practices, and holidays and, in particular, the Ramadan fast, seem to take place freely for the Muslims of Western Thrace; often even with the participation of theologians from the Arab countries and Turkey. However, the entry of religious leaders from Turkey invited by the unofficial muftis without consulting the Greek authorities was blocked by Greece (see Special Rapporteur’s communication, E/CN.4/1995/91). National and/or linguistic minorities find themselves in a similar situation. One is free not to attend any official celebrations as an adult; as a minor and a student one is expected to attend official national celebrations irrespectively of ones religious beliefs but s/he is not expected to attend religious celebrations if his/her family has asked for his/her exemption.

- Do believers and churches have the right to establish and maintain communications with other believers and churches throughout your country and abroad? May they invite individuals and organizations from abroad to visit, teach, preach, attend conferences, etc.? Please provide information on the mechanism with which these activities are done and are regulated by the state.

Law no 1363 as amended by law 1672/1939 requires issuance of a permit from the Ministry of National Education and Religions and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the entry to Greece of a minister of any religion or denomination or leader of a creed who is not a Greek national. Anyone who enters without such a permit is subject to deportation. The Royal Decree of May 20/June 2/1939 exempts non-Greek ministers of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Many denominations have reported difficulties in getting residence permits for foreign members of their faith who come to Greece to perform missionary work. Some even have considered sending European Union nationals who are not subject to this restriction.^[72] Communication of believers within Greece and from abroad is free. Restrictions are set only for foreign preachers or missionaries, for religious representatives in general. For example, in the beginning of 1999 five Catholic nuns of the Mother Theresa Order were expelled in spite of all efforts made by the Catholic Church of Greece to renew their residence permit. Their expulsion followed a recommendation by the Directorate of State Security, despite past state assurances that something like this was not going to happen agaiAndroutsopo.

7. Restrictions of Religious Freedom

Art. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Art. 9 of the Convention allow restrictions of religious freedom only if they are done to protect public safety, public order, or the health, morals, or fundamental rights and freedoms of others. No other grounds are allowed.

- What are the grounds for restrictions of religious freedom in your country? Are they the same as in the above acts of international law? If they are not, how is the difference justified?

All restrictions of religious freedom in Greece, as we have already pointed out, emanate from a fundamental principal that permeates all legislative actions and affects public opinion by legitimizing the corresponding activities. That is the preferential treatment of the Eastern Orthodox Church as the “prevailing religion” through a constitutional decree. Following this, the protection of public safety, public order, or the health, morals, or fundamental rights and freedoms of others acquire a different significance under an order where all citizens begin as equals and when some citizens are more equal than others. In addition, any such inequality or preferential treatment requires no justification since it emanates from a fundamental law and hence it is so to say “natural.” International instruments interpreted in this context can even come to justify such inequality amongst citizens.

- Are the grounds for restrictions of religious freedom prescribed by law? Please provide information on the relevant acts. Are the concrete limitations of religious freedom that actually take place always based on legal prescriptions? Do they always have a legitimate aim, i.e. one allowed by the international covenants listed above?

According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur (…) Article 13 of the Greek Constitution of 1975 guarantees religious freedom, which implies freedom of belief or freedom of religious conscience (par. 1) and freedom of worship or of the practice of rites of worship (par. 2). Freedom of belief is guaranteed to all, whereas freedom of worship, although protected by the Constitution, may be subject to certain limitations arising in particular from the status of “known religion” and from the manner in which proselytism is viewed. (a) The concept of “known religion,” Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that freedom of worship is reserved for “known religions.” This concept of “known religion” raises a number of questions because, although the concept is not defined in the Constitution, this provision limits religious freedom. This limitation appears to be inconsistent with Article 1, Paragraph 3, of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, which provides that “freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” Indeed, Article 13, Paragraph 2, of the Constitution explicitly imposes such legal limitations (in respect of public order and morals) and applies them to all known religions.

According to Greek legal practice and information supplied by the authorities, a “known religion” must have no secret dogmas and must not involve worship in secret. In the opinion of the Ministry of Justice, it must be a religion to which any person may adhere and it must be sufficiently transparent, so that it is possible to guard against religions that pose a threat to public order, morals, and the rule of law. The absence of any constitutional, legislative, or other definition of the concept of known religion would appear to contravene the 1981 Declaration and the legal limitations envisaged therein and pose serious practical problems for religious minorities and for conscientious objection (see Chap. II). Moreover, it should be noted that Article 14 of the Constitution provides that the seizure of newspapers and other publications before or after circulation is allowed by the order of the public prosecutor in case of an offense against the Christian religion or any other known religion. Accordingly, religions that are not “known” are not covered by this provision. As already stated, Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that proselytism is prohibited. The Constitution does not define the concept of proselytism. The Special Rapporteur noted that proselytism is itself inherent in religion, which explains its legal status in international instruments and in the 1981 Declaration. In Greece, however, proselytism is punishable under the two “Necessity Acts,” (Act No. 1363/1938 and Act No. 1672/1939) promulgated during the dictatorship of General Metaxas and their impact on religion in general and on religious minorities is of considerable concern.

- Are the limitations of religious freedom that take place in your country necessary in a democratic society, i.e. are they proportional and applied in good faith?

In this light, from a constitutional point of view, although freedom of conscience is guaranteed, the Special Rapporteur noted that there are limitations on freedom of worship, which are inconsistent with internationally, established human rights norms. Article 13 of the Constitution limits freedom of worship to “known” religions, but the lack of any legal definition of the concept of “known religion” seems to be prejudicial. In particular, it does not seem to be in accord with the legal restrictions on religious freedom provided for in Article 1, paragraph 3, of the 1981 Declaration. The Christian religious minorities are particularly affected by this situation; their legal recognition is often called into question, mainly concerning matters relating to places of worship and conscientious objection.

The Special Rapporteur recommended that the concept of a “known religion” should be defined precisely, either in the Constitution or in legislation, in a manner consistent with the legal restrictions provided for in the 1981 Declaration. Alternatively, if appropriate, the concept should be eliminated altogether.

The Special Rapporteur considered the constitutional provisions prohibiting proselytism to be inconsistent with the 1981 Declaration and stressed the need for greater respect for internationally recognized human rights norms, including freedom to convert and freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, and in public or private, except where necessary restrictions are provided for by law. These comments also apply to the Necessity Acts concerning proselytism. Removal of the legal prohibition against proselytism was very strongly recommended. Failing to do so, proselytism could be defined in such a way as to leave appropriate leeway for the exercise of religious freedom.

With regard to legislation governing places of worship, the Special Rapporteur was in favor of abolishing the Necessity Acts and elaborating a new law, which would dispense the requirement of the opinion from the Orthodox Church. The law should confer the State the competence to guarantee religious freedom, limited only by restrictions that are internationally accepted.

In October 1998, a First Instance Court in Komotini refused the registration of the “Association of Religious Clergymen of Western Thrace Holy Mosques” because of the name “Western Thrace,” which “could be interpreted as malign and international challenge of the Greekness of Thrace.” This was done despite the fact that there were other registered associations that included Western Thrace in their names, which has also been commonly used as a geographical term in Greece, including in official state documents.

In December 1997, the Three-Member Appeals Court of Athens (decision 10493) upheld the 1996 First Instance Court ruling that the Greek Center for Applied Philosophy (KEFE) belonging to the Church of Scientology should be disbanded. KEFE was first dissolved officially because it had carried out business activities that were different from the goals cited in its statutes and, therefore, illegal, given its status as an association. It was also because the aims pursued by the church were alien to the nature and the substance of the human being as a free person; and these aims were alien to the morals and customs of the Greek people. The court also accepted the public prosecutor’s argument that the association had engaged in proselytism and spying and that the Church of Greece and the Panhellenic Parents’ Union had a legal right to intervene in order to protect the Greek Orthodox culture and religion, therefore, the right to ask for the association’s dissolution. Greek Helsinki Monitor and Minority Rights Group Greece concluded that the prosecutor had failed to produce sufficient evidence on charges other than some minor irregularities regarding financial issues, which could have given grounds only for fines.

Similarly, in 1998 a Professor of German, Eva Androutsopoulu, was accused for “proselytism” in her class by way of trying to convert her students to Buddhism, though she was not a Buddhist. The local Metropolitan of Western Thrace, Damaskinos, known for his extreme nationalist and fundamentalist positions, held the accusation. Amnesty International denounced the trial. The trial eventually took place later in the same year and she was acquitted.

On 12 December 2000, in the Single-Member First Circuit Court of Thessaloniki, for the first time in the Greek judicial annals, the representatives of all minority Christian churches were tried simultaneously. Sixteen members of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jehovah’s Witnesses Churches had been indicted for “unauthorized operation of a house of worship” in violation of article 1 of Law 1672/1939. They were being tried despite the fact that the briefs contain the permits to operate a house of worship for eleven of the cases in dispute, while the other five are simply offices of the respective churches. The prosecution began with a document by the State Security of Thessaloniki to the Prosecutor on 14 April 1997. It is obvious that both the State Security and the Prosecutor were lying, their objective being simply the harassment and humiliation of these religious minorities. One of them happened to have already been acquitted by the court for the same charge on 5 November 1999. On 12 December, all sixteen defendants were acquitted. Our NGOs called for stringent disciplinary penalties against the mendacious state officials, lest this action be regarded as having the sanction of the State at its highest levels. In a 13 December 2000 letter to the Thessaloniki Police Directorate, the Greek Ombudsman noted:

“Even in the case of acquittal of the defendants, the criminal procedure is by itself an irreparable defamation. The observance of religious beliefs is thus under the continuing threat of court involvement and harassment, in violation of the constitutional provision (article 13 para 2) for “unobstructed” [observance]. Moreover, given the legitimacy of the confidence that a law-abiding society has in the police force, possible mass sweep operations on minority religions may create in society the very dangerous stereotype that all non-dominant religions have the intent to break the laws… If for all other activities (commercial, artistic, etc.) that require licenses, the police has the possibility to base its operations on mere hints, this cannot hold for an activity that the Constitution explicitly wants it to be “unobstructed” and “protected by law,” thus mandating police authorities to protect it. When it comes to religious activities, the thorough control of any possibly existing documents must precede any persecutory police action. Should there be even a little bit of truth in the complaint [by an Evangelical Church] that police authorities file court briefs against religious officers without prior investigation on the existence or not of a license for the operation of a house of worship, and treat all non-Orthodox churches as in principle illegal, the eventual court acquittals will not suffice to save Greece from the danger of a conviction by the European Court of Human Rights.”

As the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) argues in its 2001 report, “Recommendations on Issues of Religious Freedom”, it is necessary that the legal framework of Greece is changed to correspond with the content of the Manousakis and others judgement (25/09/1996) of the ECHR. It is known, continues the report, that no other West European constitution or legislative text contains provisions forbidding proselytism. It is clear that the notion of an “heretic” has no legal meaning in the human rights law, given every person’s liberty to believe in any dogma or religion s/he chooses or to be an atheist; equally, to change his religious beliefs or to express them as s/he chooses. Therefore, it would be imperative that the state abolishes all provisions concerning proselytism and creates a new context for the protection of citizens, which is in conformity with contemporary reality and needs. Finally, on the subject of he construction and operation of places of worship, the report recommends the abolition of article 1§1 and 3 of the Royal Decree 20/2.6.1939, that defines the conditions for issuing the required permit by the Minister of National Education and Religions. The NCHR concludes suggesting that only a permit from the urban planning authorities should be required for the construction and the operation of places of worship, which should be obtained on the basis of respect for the principle of equality in the exercise of religious liberty. According to NCHR the adaptation of the Greek judicial authorities with the decisions of the Court of Strasbourg on the issue of proselytism is confirmed by the order of dismissal 183/1994 of the Misdemeanors’ Judicial Council of Larissa (unpublished), which explicitly refers to the Kokkinakis case. Nevertheless, the report continues, the legal framework concerning proselytism, which can be traced back to the Metaxas dictatorship appears to be very anachronistic and as Judge Martens of the ECHR in the Kokkinakis case noted the law corresponds to conditions of another epoch and it underestimates the intellectual level of the average Greek citizen. General practice of the Greek administration is to constrain the operation of places of worship, as it is evident in the case of the JWs in Kassandria, Halkidiki, requiring the intervention of the Ombudsman in 1999, something that does not conform to the Strasbourg jurisprudence.^[73]

Similarly the Ombudsman of Greece in his annual 2001 report notes on the issue of freedom of religion and belief that the legal framework regulating the regime of churches and places of worship of religious communities other than of the prevailing religion, contains provisions whose implementation may bring about inequalities that do not conform with the Constitution and the European Convention for Human Rights.

The Ombudsman’s report acknowledges that the real cause of the problem is found in the existing legislative framework that regulates the permission of the operation of places of worship. It contains such an obvious suspiciousness against all religions except the prevailing one, something that confines public administration in the conception that religious belief must go through more and more rigorous control in comparison with other human activities. In a similar conclusion has arrived the European Court for Human Rights in its judgment 26.09.1996 (Manoussakis and others vs. Greece). “The Greek state uses the possibilities made available by these provisions in a way to impose strict and prohibitive preconditions in the realization of their beliefs of certain non-Orthodox religions.” For this reason the Ombudsman proceeds already with the relevant legislative recommendation Law no 1363/1938, 1369/1938 and 1672/1939 as well as the Royal Decree of 20.5/2.6.1939, concerning construction and operation of houses of worship are revised in order to remove from the authorities that provide permits every possibility of evaluating subjectively the “real need” of the construction and operation of such homes. The Ombudsman concludes that the construction and operation of homes of worship must be brought strictly under the control of urban planning and construction authorities. Till the amendment of the legislative framework the Ministry of Public Order has committed itself to exhaust every ex officio possibility for the verification of the existence of a permit before it takes persecutory action.^[74]

In another special report, the Greek Ombudsman informs of a complaint received from the Panhellenic Evangelical Alliance in the summer 1998. Members of the Pentecostal Free Apostolic Church after making an application for a permit to construct and operate a place of worship in the place of Gastouni, region of Ilia (Peloponissos) to the Directorate of Other Creeds and Religions of the Ministry of National Education and Religions, found out that the Directorate had sent their application with all their names to the local Metropolitan for his opinion. Further, the Metropolitan distributed the list of the names of the applicants to all local parishes publicizing their religious identity to everyone else in their community without ever asking them. Such an act could lead to discriminatory treatment by the public and the local authorities. Following this, it was alleged by the Panhellenic Evangelical Alliance in their complaint, without however providing the necessary information for the Ombudsman to take up the case, that a local priest after being informed of the religious identity of one individual in his community refused to provide a certificate required for applying for ones pension. In his answer to the interested parties the Ombudsman notes that he cannot take up the issue of the refusal to provide a certificate to someone because he is of another faith, since the information provided was not sufficient, however, he considers such an action unacceptable and that it should be taken up so that in the future such discrimination can be avoided. Nevertheless, on the issue of the publication of the names of members of the Pentecostal Free Apostolic Church the Ombudsman notes that, though it has no competence over the authorities of the Orthodox Church, the competent authorities of the Ministry should know that: according to provisions of law no 2472/97 on the “Protection of the individual from processing of data of a personal nature,”^[75] the local metropolitan should be informed only of the request for the construction and operation, not of the list of names with the signatures of the applicants that, in fact, cannot assist in any way in the formation of an opinion on the issue; further, it should know that the opinion of the metropolitan is only required by law in the case of the construction of a church and not a place of worship; in any case, the Ombudsman reminds, that any recommendation by the metropolitan is not binding for the Ministry; finally, the Ombudsman concludes that someone who requests a permit does not publicize “urbi et orbi” his/her convictions, s/he only informs the competent authorities. In its answer the Ministry notes that when this application had come to the Directorate (summer of 1998) the competent authorities had not yet been sufficiently informed about the implementation of law 2472/97 and therefore were continuing to inform the local Metropolitans of the names of the applicants, something that is not anymore done.^[76]

On 26 of April 2002, Chara Kalomiri, after seven years of legal proceedings, with three decisions against her by the Supreme Court, she was judged innocent for operating without a permit from the Ministry of National Education and Religions a place of worship for Buddhists. Witnesses for prosecution were three Orthodox priests. Based on Royal Decree of 20.5/2.6.1939 she had been accused three times with a total time of imprisonment of seven months and a total money penalty of 441 euros. The Three-member Misdemeanor Court of Thessaloniki, finally decided that the housing complex, a non-profit association of which she had been a member, was not operating as a place of worship, and therefore did not come under Laws no 1363/1938, 1369/1938 and 1672/1939 for its construction and operation.

With regard to the legislation on identity cards that provides for the mentioning of the holder’s religion, the Special Rapporteur recalled the resolution of the European Parliament that considered this provision firstly, as a violation of the fundamental freedoms of the individual, particularly freedom of opinion and religious freedom, which are the exclusive province of the human conscience and, secondly, as a provision that should be abolished. The Special Rapporteur fully supported this resolution.

As Professor Pollis notes in her study on the state of religious minorities in Greece, “The underlying premises of any social order are institutionalized in state structures. Deinstitutionalization and delegalization can facilitate changes in norms and behavior. Greece will not be in conformity with Europe’s norms on religious freedom until the courts (1) abandon their narrow interpretation of “known” religion, (2) remove from the Ministry of Education and Religion the power to issue permits for the establishment of houses of worship, (3) differentiate between education and religion, (4) drop religion from the Ministry of Education and Religion, (5) abolish the Greek Orthodox Church’s supervisory role and power over all religious matters, and (6) inhibit restrictive legislation. Without such reforms, Greece will not only remain subject to charges of violating the Human Rights Convention but, more fundamentally, will have the distinction of being the only member of the European Community and signatory of the Convention of Human Rights to limit religious freedom and to harass religious minorities. Restrictions on religious freedom are symptomatic not only of Greece’s insularity but also of the rigidity of the boundaries that define Greek ethnic identity. Lying ahead is a tortuous path leading from this present state to the emergence of multiple identities that help Greekness to become primarily a cultural and linguistic identity coexisting with the construction of a European identity.”^[77]

8. Religious Education

- Do parents have the right to educate their children in the religion of their choice?

Article 1510,1 of the Civil Code characterizes parental care as a duty and a right of the parents, and art. 1518, 1 of the same code specifies that the content of this care include among others, matters dealing with “education”. The civil law provision leaves no doubt as to the parents’ prevalence regarding the religious education of their children at school. It is therefore argued that though the role of education, amongst other, is to develop a religious conscience this is to be done only after the approval of the parents.^[78]

- Are religious doctrines or religious subjects taught in the public schools? If yes, how are they taught? Please provide the legal grounds for such public education (please include a translation and give the organizational structure of such education).

In article 1 of Law 1566/30.9.1985, which regulates the specifics of the structure of elementary and secondary education, we read “that the scope of the education …is to help the students: a) to become free, responsible and democratic citizens…with faith in the Fatherland and the Christian Orthodox traditions. The freedom of religious conscience is inviolable.” Also according to art. 16 par. 1 and 2 of the Constitution we read that: “Academic freedom and freedom of teaching shall not exempt anyone from his duty of allegiance to the Constitution. Education constitutes a basic mission for the State and shall aim at the moral, intellectual, professional and physical training of Greeks, the development of national and religious conscience and at their formation as free and responsible citizens. This article has to be in conjunction with art. 2 of the Additional Protocol (no1) to the European Convention of Human Rights, which stipulates that: “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any function which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right to parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious philosophical conviction.” Therefore, taking under consideration that the majority of Greeks are Christian Orthodox, the system of Greek education provided in public schools includes, inter alia, “the development” of the religious conscience of all Greek pupils according to the principles of Christian Orthodox teachings, the participation of the pupils in the religious educational festivities, for example, the daily prayer, the attendance of the course of religion, the posting of the icon of Jesus Christ on the walls of all classrooms, etc.”^[79]

As Professor G. Sotirelis remarks in his study on Religion and Education, the most important consequence of the peculiar local ideology of the so-called “Hellenic Christian civilization” is in the interweaving of religion and education. The way in which religious dogmas influence the pedagogical orientation of the educational system is by definition affiliated to the right of self-determination of one’s conscience. And he explains further, religious education in our country has traditionally a directional character. It is firstly monophonic, because it concentrates mainly on the dogmas, the teachings and the morals of the “prevailing religion”, but also it excludes from the teaching staff – fully or partly – the non-Orthodox ones. Secondly, it indoctrinates since it does not aim in the transmission of religious knowledge but at the dogmatic enforcement of faith in a predetermined system of dogmatic principles. Finally, it is also, obligatory for all students who have not been declared by their parents as heterodox, that is, all students who are presumed – because of baptism- as Christian Orthodox.^[80] In other words in Greek public schools the Orthodox Church may practice “proselytism” (this is also done in many other public spaces where one sees church officials along with other public authorities) unhindered precisely because one is born Greek Orthodox and because the Orthodox Church one of its functions is catechism of the Greek Orthodox brethren. It should be added that though in theory religious education is not obligatory for heterodox students who can be exempted, even today in many public schools in Greece, students of heterodox families find themselves attending instruction on the Christian Orthodox dogma. This is why in its concluding observations the Committee of the Rights of the Child (CRC), in its report on Greece, expressed its concern at reports of administrative and social pressures being placed on children from religious minorities.^[81] As it has been noted religious education in Greek public schools negates provisions of the Greek constitution, i.e., Article 5 1. “All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality and to participate in the social, economic and political life of the country, insofar as they do not infringe the rights of others or violate the Constitution and the good usages”, and international instruments signed and/or ratified which provide for the protection of fundamental individual freedoms. As stated in the First Protocol of the ECHR par. 2 it is imperative that the information and knowledge provided by public education are communicated in ways that are objective, critical and pluralistic. “The state’s intentions cannot be those of “dogmatic despotism” (indoctrination) (…).” The ECHR in its preparatory discussions noted firmly that the means used to inculcate religious or philosophic ideas by the state might lead to propagandization that corresponds to totalitarianism. Totalitarianism, it is explained, is not only a tendency of dictatorial governments but it can also emerge in democratic ones; therefore, it is imperative to guard against it in European states. As G. Koumandos explains, in Greece, “for several years, at least as long as school attendance lasts, the child receives a shower of impressions whose object is to make him/her believe in the dogmas and lessons of his/her religion…this psychological treatment does not differ substantially from ‘brainwashing’.”^[82]

Recently, (June 2002) the Authority on the Protection of Personal Data recommended (77A/2002) the removal of the inscription of a student’s religion on his/er certificate of studies in primary and secondary school based on the provisions of Law no. 2472/97 which in article 2 par. a & b clarifies that religion constitutes data of a personal nature. The authority argued that it is illegal to record ones religion because it violates the fundamental principle of the necessity of personal data processing and can compromise the individual to religious discrimination, something that the legal order according to article 13 par. 1 of the Constitution must dissuade. In addition, the Authority adds that a school certificate is intended to confirm one’s school progress, and recording on it the student’s religious affiliation as much as keeping school records on the students’ religious affiliation is illegal. The Authority reminds that the recent law no. 2472/1997, which introduces into the Greek legal order regulations of the international and E.U. law, enforces a compatible to it interpretation and implementation of former regulations on the gathering and processing of information that, henceforth, fall under the protective regime that this law establishes. Therefore it recommends, forewarns and asks the data processing authorities of the Ministry of National Education and Religions to modify the relevant provisions and to adjust them to the content of its decision (77A/2002) at a reasonable time. In September 2002 the issue was taken up by the media and acquired sudden publicity. Hence there have been critical reactions towards the Authority by the Holy Synod who declared that the Authority “creates unwanted tensions in the relations between the Church and the State;” the archbishop Christodoulos in one of his sermons attacked the president of the Authority, “No Dafermos and no traitor will be able to abase us…Dafermos came to subvert the nation and its traditions, and the Church will not allow this to happen.” But, more importantly, the Minister of National Education and Religions, Mr. Petros Efthimiou, declared, “education cannot function on the basis of isolated and subjective cosmic conceptions.”^[83] He also added that it was not in the intention of the government to implement any changes for the coming school year. Finally it should be added here that the Authority operates by law and according to article 9A^[84] of the recently amended constitution it is an independent authority to which any person may turn when confronted with the collection, processing and use of personal data by either private or public institution(s). However, while the Authority has the power to denounce breaches of the law on the protection of personal data it has no powers to enforce its consequences upon public law entities. In this case it can only wait for their implementation through the introduction by the government of a circular or relevant legislation that gives to its recommendations legal force. Of course, the turning of an important number of claimants to the Authority against the collection or processing of personal data by a public law entity may engender a process which the government will not be able to overturn unless it negates the very law it legislated, law no.2472/1998.

- How are parents involved in religious education in the public schools? Are any parents, students, or denominations excluded from the classes and on what grounds? Are parents allowed to remove their children from these classes?

Non Orthodox students who do not participate in the educational obligations mentioned above and which concern the development of a religious conscience can do so only after their parents declare to the Director of the school their wish that their child refrains from activities concerning religious education. As the Council of State has decided in decision no 3356/1995, chamber VI, refraining from such obligations does not constitute grounds for penalty.^[85] Though this is the case in theory, a morning visit to most elementary and secondary schools, which in greater Athens attend immigrant students that generally come from non-Orthodox families, they can be seen participating in Orthodox morning prayer. In a society that is by great majority Orthodox, requesting that one’s child does not participate in prevailing religious practices will make that child feel as a disadvantage its difference from the great majority. One must add here that until very recently parents wishing their child to be exempted from the course of religion they were obliged to make a common declaration that proves that the student in question is an atheist or heterodox or of another religion. In the case of Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses the parents had to declare that they as well as their child followed this faith. Recently, however, the Authority on the Protection of Personal Data (77A/2002) judged that such a declaration is illegal based on the provisions of law no. 2472/1997, because it is contrary to the right of the parents to guarantee the education of their children without any conditions according to their religious and philosophical convictions (ECHR). Furthermore, such a declaration is contrary to the negative religious liberty of the student as well as his/er parents or guardians, since it forces them to announce publicly their religious convictions. Again, given the declarations made by the Minister of National Education and Religions on the Authority’s recommendations (see above), it is not expected that they will be implemented in the near future unless the interested parties impose effective pressure upon the government.

A Muslim citizen of the island of Kos who is the parent of a student of primary school complaint because fifty students of the Muslim faith while they were exempted from attending the course on religion were forced to stay in the classroom during the instruction, occupying themselves with other activities. This practice has been followed for many years and the director of the school invokes relative circulars and practical reasons for which these students cannot go to the courtyard since there is no one to supervise them. Following this complaint the Ombudsman recommended to the Directorate of primary education of the Ministry of National Education and Religions that immediately the Muslim students be taken out of the classroom during the religious instruction period and that legal and real possibilities for the future instruction of a course on the Muslim religion is provided by the state to those students, at least in cases where live numerous and compact Muslim minorities of Greek citizenship, something which in any case happened in the past in the primary schools of the Dodecanese. Following this recommendation the Ministry immediately turned away from the classroom those students.^[86] However, no action has been taken by the Ministry so far to provide religion courses for Muslim students attending public schools in areas where live numerous and compact Muslim minorities of Greek citizenship.

- What is the nature of doctrines taught in the public schools (e.g. one interdenominational course, a class for each religious doctrine for which there is sufficient demand, a general class on all religions practiced in the country, etc.)?

Educating the majority population about the culture, history, language, and religion of national minorities has traditionally been neglected in Greece. In spite of progress made during the last ten years, Greek instruction books remain largely textbooks of the Greek ethnic nation, its history, its culture, its fight for state sovereignty, which are always in contrary to the Turkish or Bulgarian elements. The textbooks convey the feeling that the Greek land has not traditionally been the home of various ethnic, cultural, and religious communities, especially the Bulgarian/Macedonian, Turkish, and Jewish national minorities, and also the perpetually disregarded Roma.

Representatives of the Jewish community in particular have been vocal on the issue. They considered the way that Jewish topics are presented in Greek elementary and secondary schools as unsatisfactory. Similar to other observers, they point out that Greek textbooks and curricula do not provide sufficient information about Jewish presence in the history or they provide such information in a distorted and sometimes anti-Semitic manner.

According to the representatives of the Catholic Church, a Greek Orthodox education, focusing exclusively on the Orthodox religion and the Greek nation, has come into existence to the detriment of the religious minorities. For that reason, it is generally believed that only Orthodox Christians are truly Greek. Thus the Catholic Church and its spiritual head, the Pope, are allegedly portrayed in a negative light in school textbooks, particularly in history books. Those textbooks are seen as being, as it were, permeated by Orthodox thinking. Nevertheless, according to non-governmental observers, appreciable progress has recently been made, in particular through the publication of textbooks on the history of religions and their philosophy, which incorporate fairly satisfactory chapters on non-Orthodox religions. Despite the efforts made in the case of the other religions, school textbooks continue to disseminate a negative image of the Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Regarding the requirement of religious instruction and education, students who are not of an Orthodox tradition are excused from the Orthodox religious course. However, non-governmental sources report that in several schools almost daily religious sermons are held that are hostile to the faith of the JWs. These sermons are said to create psychological trauma among students who are JWs. Protestants do not ask to have Protestant religious courses introduced, but choose instead to be excused from the Orthodox courses and to conduct religious education at home. As a rule, Catholics also ask for exemption, except for two cases: (i) in private Catholic schools children of that faith have classes on Catholic religion (ii) in the State schools in the islands of Siros and Tinos where 85 per cent of Greek Catholics live, Catholic teaching is also provided by priests or lay people.

Catholics benefit from religious teaching in accordance with their beliefs. Nevertheless, they sometimes experience difficulties in securing employment postings for Catholic religious teachers. Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses reportedly are denigrated in Orthodox religious sermons. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur noted with satisfaction that minorities could be excused from Orthodox religious classes.

In conclusion, “Laws 694/1977 and 695/1977 constitute the main legal texts organizing the special educational system, on an optional basis, for the Muslim minority, whose curriculum is taught half in the Greek and half in the Turkish language. (…) According to the Ministerial Decree 149251/1951 (articles 2 par. B and 17), the teaching of the course of religion in the minority school aims at the “development of religious feeling”, teaching the pupil “the Islamic creed is based on sound moral principles” and that it will “transmit to them the faith in God.”^[87]

However to comprehend best the nature of religious education in Greek public schools one must consider some cases of clear intolerance against non-Orthodox religions as it is expressed in religion classes. JWs reported a recent example of such intolerance and discrimination at the Nea Mesimvria High School (Thessaloniki) where on September 18, 2001 a teacher projected in her class a video distributed by the “Orthodox Press) newspaper, which presented Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses scornfully, pejoratively and contemptuously. The tape was also accompanied by similar comments by the teacher. The teacher argued that she projected the video in the context of the legitimate educational objectives of the school. The Central Congregation of the JWs of Greece protested to the Ministry of National Education and Religions and the Secretary General of Religions and informed the Ombudsman of this event that violated Articles 1-2 of Law 927/79, which states that “whoever, either publicly or orally … or even by writings, illustrations or any other means, incites somebody to acts or practices which could provoke discrimination, hatred, violence or expresses offensive ideas against an individual or group on the basis of racial or national descent or on ground of religious convictions, he is subjected to punishment either by imprisonment or (up to two years) or by fine or both.” Also, it violated article 199 of the Penal Code, which forbids public mischievous slander of other religions tolerated in Greece. The Ombudsman in his communication to the competent authorities of the Ministry of National Education and Religions asked to be informed on the authorization for the distribution and projection of this videotape in public schools. The answer that came from the Directorate of Secondary Education of Thessaloniki (16/11/2001) argued that the course addresses only Orthodox pupils, that it is a course of catechism, that the instructor’s right and obligation is to provide knowledge that goes far beyond what is contained in textbooks, that the content of the video tape does not diverge in any way from that of the first level secondary school textbook on religion, and finally it questions the right of a religious minority to complain since as it argues JWs in their meetings try to prove that they interpret correctly the truth. It asks, should they be therefore denounced? On what basis do they have the right to determine the content of school courses and programs?

The Ombudsman noted in his answer that though catechism and the one sided character of religion courses in public schools is consistent with the Constitution, this does not imply that religious teaching may contain slighting comments about other religious communities. A public school, he explains, cannot present other religions as “organs of the devil.” The fact that the course addressed only Orthodox students does not release the state from the principle of respect for other religions based above all on articles 1-2 of law 927/79 and on article 199 of the Penal Code, which are meant to protect public interest and to guarantee religious and social order. The Ombudsman’s report clarified further that public instructors have no rights as to the content of public education they only have obligations. Therefore, any material used in public schools must have the authorization of the Ministry of National Education and Religions after the recommendation of the Pedagogical Institute. He further adds, that his office has already received another complaint concerning the textbook on religion for the first level of secondary education. Finally, the Ombudsman concludes that he considers inconceivable the comparison between catechism of a religious community amongst its believers and catechism in a course of a public school. One is based on freedom of religion while the other is limited by the principle of legitimacy. Regarding the unlimited liberty of criticism of other religions, the ombudsman clarifies that the provision concerning a prevailing religion in Greece does not equate public education with catechism schools operated by the Church practice. Following this issue the Pedagogical Institute was asked to answer on the legitimacy of the projection of the video in question. In its reply (14/6/2002) it clarified that whatever may have been the content of the video, it is in conformity with the studies of the educational program on the basis of which it has been written the textbook on religion.

The Ombudsman found the examination of the issue by the competent authorities of the Ministry of National Education and Religions inadequate and argues that the refusal to examine the content of the videotape could constitute a precedent, going beyond an individual case, which nullifies the obligation of an authorization by the supervising organs. Of course the recommendation by the Ombudsman for disciplinary measures to be taken was completely ignored by the pertinent authorities. Hence the Ombudsman report on this case concludes that having exhausted unsuccessfully in this case his intermediary intervention to the administration the Ombudsman recommended to the competent Minister of National Education and Religions to enforce upon the administration to reexamine the issue with the objective of securing conditions for mutual religious respect in public education.^[88]

Another such example took place in the secondary school of Evosmos, Thessaloniki, on 14 January 2002, when the theologian teaching the third grade, Mr. Bihas, distributed a leaflet that distorted, blurred and slandered in an uncongenial way the convictions of JWs and one of his students, Irini Papaionnou. Since the young student did not attend the course, she learned about what happened from the others. Mr. Bihas called the JWs student a heretic and he argued that this heresy distorts Christian teachings and he continued in this ways throughout the course. The students questioned his attitude and tried to tell him that their schoolmate was not at all as he tried to tell them.

On the same line, while it is true that many texts concerning religious matters have improved and an effort is made to deal with other religious minorities in Greece more objectively, some of the textbooks used on religious courses remain highly biased and negative in their presentation of other religious communities. Such an example is, the textbook of the senior high school “Orthodox Faith and Worship” written by Christos Gotsis, the reverent George Metallinos and George Filias for the Ministry of National Education and Religions. This book does not present other faiths but it opposes them to the one “correct faith” (Orthodoxy).

- Are there any denominational private schools of general education in your country? Which denominations have such schools? Do they teach classes in their religion alone or in other religions as well? Is their licensing process the same as that of other schools of general education?

The private Catholic schools (12 schools with some 10,000 pupils, mainly of the Orthodox faith with fewer than 1,000 Catholic pupils) teach the Catholic religion to pupils of that faith.

Concerning religious education of the Muslim minority residing in Western Thrace, two religious high schools (Mendrese) have been functioning in Komotini and Echinos since 1949 and 1956 respectively. They provide religious training to children wishing to pursue higher-level studies in religious schools or to become khatibs or imams. Those Muslims who are in favor of electing the muftis are also in favor of being able to choose the teachers who offer the religion courses; for example, choosing them could be a prerogative of the elected mufti.

9. Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

- Are there any legislative acts that prohibit discrimination based on religion or belief? Please describe them and provide translations.

Article 5.2 of the Greek Constitution (which is the only constitutional provision that implicitly refers to minority rights) prohibits among others discrimination on the basis of religion or belief: “All persons living within the Greek territory shall enjoy full protection of their life, honor and liberty, irrespective of nationality, race or language and of religious or political beliefs. Exceptions shall be permitted only in cases provided by international law.” In addition to Article 5 paragraph 2, some Greek laws prohibit and penalize acts of discrimination. Prohibition of discrimination and equality before the law are set out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Race Discrimination, which is binding and has precedence over the law. Nevertheless, there is no policy to promote diversity and minority cultures in Greece; nor are there any substantial subsidies granted to minority associations., In particular to religious diversity, “although direct religious discrimination is not easily tolerated by the majority of the Greek courts, most notably the Council of State, there exists a number of laws which fail to take into account religious diversity. ... It emerges clearly... that the enjoyment of several constitutional rights can vary depending on ethnic origin, religion and language.”^[89]

A special penal legislation is provided for combating racism and intolerance, namely articles 1 (prohibiting racial discrimination or hatred) and 2 (prohibiting public expressions through the press of ideas offensive to persons due to their origin) of Law 927/1979 (as amended with Law 1419/1984). This law was amended with article 39, paragraph 4 of Law 2910/2001, which enables the prosecutor file indictments ex officio.

Law 927/1979 punishes:

- Incitement to discrimination, hate or violence against individuals or groups because of their racial, ethnic and [by virtue of Law No 1419/1984] religious origin;

- Establishment of, and membership in organizations that proceed to organized propaganda or other activities aimed at racial discrimination;

- Public, oral and written, expression of offensive ideas aimed at racial discrimination; the act of refusing to sell goods or supply services, or subjecting the aforementioned activities to special conditions, on racial grounds. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the said provisions, the draft Immigration Bill enables prosecuting authorities to press charges ex officio in case of racist and discriminatory acts.

One mechanism for the redress of human rights violations whose mandate could include non-discrimination is the National Human Rights Commission. This Committee composed, inter alia, of government officials, NGO representatives, trade unions, political parties, university Professors and Supreme Court judges, reporting to the Prime Minister, was established in 1998, by degree of Law 2667/1998. Its tasks are: to monitor the human rights situation; to raise awareness of the general public and the media on human rights issues; and to make proposals on human rights legislation.

In 1997, the Ombudsman’s Office was set up by a decree of Law 2477/1997. The Ombudsman (“Defender of the Citizen”) is appointed by the Council of Ministers following a proposal by the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions and Transparency, and enjoys full independence from government instructions in exercising his functions. The Office of the Ombudsman began its work in September 1998 and, during the first year of existence, it is said to have received several thousands of complaints. There are currently four sections, dealing respectively with human rights issues, relations between the Administration and the public, quality of life and social protection.

- Does discrimination based on religious or other beliefs take place in your society? What is the response of government agencies? Are there any discriminatory legal provisions or practices? Please provide relevant translations and examples.

While, the Greek State argues that it fully respects the rights of the Muslim minority, it implicitly accepts past discrimination: “The basic guiding principles of the policy followed by Greek Governments in recent years, vis-a-vis the handling of minority issues has been those of moderation and consensus. This is especially true since 1991, when the Government solemnly reaffirmed the principles of ‘isonomia,’ i.e. equality before the Law and, ‘isopoliteia,’ equality of civil rights, in the relation between Christians and Muslims. These views are also shared by non-governmental organizations that which closely follow developments in the field of minority rights. The entire issue is being handled as belonging to domestic affairs.”^[90] It should be noted that, however, there is no NGO that indeed shares that view of the government.

Non-governmental representatives consider that religious minorities are subjected to a general climate of intolerance in the form of insidious and psychological pressures. Until quite recently (2001) another point concerned the mentioning of religion on identity cards, which was unanimously rejected as being a source of discrimination. The situation was said to be due to the preponderant influence of the Orthodox Church, principally its authorities, which are said to use religion as a tool to manipulate the people and the politicians to the detriment of religious minorities and to do so in order to affirm and safeguard their power and their status as the prevailing religion. This intolerance on the part of the Orthodox Church is reportedly echoed by the media, tolerated, or even utilized, by politicians for electoral ends and relayed by certain administrative officials. It exerts pressure on the justice system and is exacerbated, in particular, on the occasion of external events such as the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the Balkans and the war in the former Yugoslavia (as the majority of the population of these countries is of the Orthodox faith, any action by the Catholic Church is interpreted by the Greek Orthodox Church as an attempt at conversion; the Vatican is also accused of cooperating with the Muslims against the Orthodox Serbs in the former Yugoslavia).

According to the governmental delegates, the State and its legislation recognizes the dominant but not overwhelming role of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church represents the religion of the majority of the population for historical, national, and traditional reasons. The government claims that a climate of religious freedom is provided, notwithstanding isolated cases of intolerance or discrimination, in particular in the administration. A few years ago, the Ministry of Justice accused the religious minorities of exaggerating the problems and that their claims are attributable to a pattern of behavior, or even a complex, characteristic of any minority that feels it has to assert and organize to confront the majority. Representative of the Orthodox Church used a similar line of argument against the religious minorities.

Based on information from non-governmental sources, Greeks of the Catholic faith are not in practice accepted for careers in the army, the police and other sensitive areas of the administration, including diplomacy. Some Catholics reportedly conceal their faith in order to have access to such posts. The Ministry of the Interior, Administration and Decentralization stated that entry to the administration was subject to inter alia, the requirement of Greek citizenship and not to a religious criterion. The Ministry specified that the law precluded any discriminatory treatment and that in practice such behavior was penalized. The Ministry of Defense emphasized there was no legal obstacle to the admission of religious minorities, including Catholics, to the army, and no distinction of a religious nature was made within the structures of the army or under military law. The forms of discrimination described in the case of Catholics and Protestants apply to the Jehovah’s Witnesses as well (see, in particular, the cases of Pilaftsoglou, Tzenos, and Nomidis, whose applications for teaching permits were rejected on the ground that they were Jehovah’s Witnesses - Special Rapporteur’s communications, E/CN.4/1994/79 and E/CN.4/1995/91).

In 1999, the leaders of two minority Christian Churches confirmed the general negative climate against minority religions in Greece. “Legally, religious freedom is secure here,” said Antonis Koulouris, Secretary-General of the Greek Evangelical (Reformed) Church, to ENI [ENI (03.03.1999) / HRWF (06.03.1999) Website http://www.hrwf.net]. “But the attitude persists that citizens have a duty to be Orthodox, and that belonging to other denominations is unpatriotic and heretical.” Furthermore, the Catholic Archbishop of Athens, Nikolaos Foscolos, told ENI that his Church had no “official contacts” with Orthodoxy, even though its members maintained the same national traditions and had contributed significantly to neo-Hellenic culture. Among areas of “practical discrimination”, the Archbishop listed Greece’s armed forces, where being Orthodox was the “first requirement” for officers. “Orthodoxy is the Church of the state, so non-Orthodox are considered incompletely Greek,” Archbishop Foscolos told ENI. “Although the constitution guarantees citizens the same juridical status regardless of creed, religious discrimination exists.”

Later, on the occasion of public opposition by nationalist and Orthodox Christian Church circles to a possible visit of the Pope to Greece to celebrate the Millennium, Archbishop Foscolos declared: “Since 1989, an anti-Catholic and anti-Pope spirit has been growing in Greece. Do not forget statements a few years ago by a Minister and Orthodox Bishops that the Pope is a war criminal. Official statements never opposed by any official government or Church authorities. … There is certainly a situation of oppression of Catholics in Greece. Here the principle that dominated in the medieval West, cujus regio egius religio, i.e. whoever owns the country also owns the religion, applies. For many people, Greek means Orthodox and strangely at someone who is Greek without being Orthodox. Both the state and the Orthodox Church nourish such mentality. When a Catholic goes to register his child in the municipal registry, usually the employee writes Christian Orthodox without even asking. If the employee is told ‘but I am a Catholic’ he answers, ‘what do you mean? We will write Christian Orthodox.’ We usually have to insist …” (“Eleftherotypia” 31/8/1999).

On 2 December 1999, twelve police officers raided the administrative offices of the non-profit association ‘Biblical Circle’ running Channel Station 2000 Radio, and arrested 73-year-old retired pastor Lakis Regas, who was working as a technician on the premises when the police arrived. Regas spent the night in jail. He was released the next day by a judge’s order. Greek authorities accused Channel Station 2000 of not having the proper operating license, but it is well known that no private radio station has ever managed to get one. A trial was set for 31 January 2000. In 1994, the government had already shut down Greece’s only Evangelical television station, “Hellas 62.”

In 2001 there were incidents of religious discrimination at the army recruits’ swearing-in ceremony. At the Medical Unit of Arta, for example, the cookhouse was planned to be the place for the 14 December swearing-in ceremony of two Catholic Christians and three Muslims, who would not take part in the official parade. Things were put in order after the general outburst and the numerous publications that followed. Nikos Zaxariades, the press representative of the General Army Staff (GES), denied that such plans had been in place, while Nikolaos Gasparakis, the director of the press office and legal counsel of the Greek Catholic Church, noted that the Greek Constitution still has remnants of the legal framework of Metaxa’s dictatorship. (Avghi and Eleftherotipia, 14/12/2001)

The issue of secret service surveillance of JWs:

In November 1998, Greece, breaking with past practices, informed the ECHR that it had settled its dispute with a Christian Jehovah Witness plaintiff, who had allegedly been under surveillance by the Greek state in March 1993. Greece promised inter alia that JWs would no longer be under surveillance. The Court accepted the settlement and struck the appeal out of its list of pending cases in January 1999 (case of Tsavachidis vs. Greece). The European Commission of Human Rights had previously granted admissibility to the case in October 1997, for an Article 8 violation of the right to respect an individual’s private and family life. Greece, admitting the surveillance, promised that neither Tsavachidis nor any other member of that Church would ever be under surveillance again.^[91]

Discriminatory provisions and practices:

Article 16.2 of the Constitution states: “Education constitutes a basic mission for the State and shall aim at the moral, intellectual, professional and physical training of Greeks, the development of national and religious consciousness and their formation as free and responsible citizens.” Consequently, in primary and secondary schools, non-Orthodox Greeks could not be hired as instructors not only for the course of religion but for any course. Some cases were taken to court and the courts pronounced that this policy impinged on the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. Law no. 1771/1998 states that the appointment of non-Orthodox teachers in public elementary schools and in nurseries if they meet the formal requirements. However, these teachers may not teach the course on religion. Nevertheless, concerning Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses the Ministry of National Education and Religions requested the opinion of the Legal Council of State as to whether law 1771/1998 should be implemented in the case of JWs teachers. The Committee decided that a ban on JWs is valid based on Article 3 and 16 of the Constitution and that it does not impinge on religious freedom.^[92] Thus the Ministry continued its old policy with respect to JWs for a period of time until a settlement of this problem was given by the Administrative Appeal Court of Patras, Peloponnese, which in its judgment on the Tzenos’ case overturned the decision of the Secondary Education Office not to grant a teaching permit to the applicant (27/10/94). Since then, no major problems have been encountered by JWs in their efforts to get a teaching job, and law 1771 is applied without discrimination.

On 11 July 1999 Mayor Constantine Papayannis incited the residents of Kassandreia, Halkidiki, Greek Macedonia, to hold a protest rally to impede the construction of a lecture hall by local JWs, who had obtained the necessary building permit No. 406 on 21 July 1995. The municipality had expressed its objection at the time with both lawful and seditious means. On 4 February 1999, the Ministry of National Education and Religions finally approved the application of the JWs and on 5 July 1999, the Halkidiki Zoning Office permitted the continued construction. During the July protest, the mob dug a trench around the JWs property using the municipality’s bulldozer and then proceeded to park cars in front of the property to make access impossible. After a new series of impediments, works resumed in October, only to lead to renewed violence. On 21 October 1999, two journalists from Halkidiki’s Super Channel were beaten by a mob led by Mayor Costas Papayannis, in Kassandreia. Costas Glykos and Michalis Katsamiras were covering the mob’s attempt to prevent the local Jehovah’s Witnesses from starting the construction of their house of worship, a construction that had been authorized by the authorities. During the violent incident, JWs, as well as two representatives of the Ombudsman’s office were harassed by the mob. The Ombudsman’s office called the incident “a challenge to state authority.” The two journalists and the JWs pressed charges against the mayor and some alleged accomplices. On 22 October, the prosecutor formally indicted the mayor and his accomplices for crimes that included inciting to religious hatred. Nevertheless, neither during the incident, nor in the ensuing forty-eight hours did the police arrest the alleged perpetrators of the crimes as called for by the code of criminal procedure. Eventually, reactions calmed down and the works were completed in November (GHM/MRGG, January 2000a; International Helsinki Federation, 2000). The trial of the Mayor -indicted for incitement to religious discrimination, disturbance of peace, unprovoked property damage, unprovoked bodily harm, breach of duty, and illegal violence- is scheduled for 19 December 2002, before the Three-Member Misdemeanor Court of Polygyros, Halikidiki.

On 20-22 August 1999, the JWs held their annual public meeting in Larisa (Central Greece). As in previous years, the Orthodox Church showed its intolerance, this time with an anti-Semitic dimension. With the bells ringing mournfully. Noisy open-air liturgies were held opposite to the meeting place -- hostile slogans were chanted and an Israeli flag was burned. As usual, there was no official condemnation of these acts of intolerance, while some media reported the events with praise.

In certain localities, there is discrimination against JWs in the cemeteries. For example, in the local cemetery at Xanthi, a wall was built in order to separate the graves of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from the persons of other denominations. The metropolitan bishop is said to have demanded that the building of the wall and the mayor acceded to the demand. The wall was eventually torn down in 1994 but the maintenance staff did not to maintain the graves of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In January 1999, Panayotis Pantazis, a JWs, was buried in a field outside the cemetery in Trymoniko near Serres because the local authorities refused to bury him inside it.

Christian Jehovah’s Witness’s children, who refuse to take part in events contrary to their religious beliefs, including national holidays and public parades organized in the schools, have been punished and even expelled. For example, in Petition No. 21787/93, Elias, Maria, and Victoria Valsamis v Greece, the European Commission of Human Rights found that a violation of religious freedom had been committed in the case of a Jehovah’s Witness pupil who was suspended from school for a day by the principal because she did not participated in the school parade to mark a national holiday. In 1996, the Court found that the applicants did not have an effective remedy before a national authority in order to raise the complaints they later submitted at Strasbourg, which is require by the Court in order to have cases presented before its panel. The Court found that there had been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9 of the Convention (Judgment 74/1995/580/666).

In January 1999, the European Court of Human Rights struck down the appeal of a JWs plaintiff who had been under surveillance by the Greek state, following a settlement between Greece and the plaintiff (Tsavachidis vs. Greece). Greece, admitting the surveillance, guaranteed permanent suspension of the surveillance of Tsavachidis and any other member of that church. Regardless of the outcome of Tsavachidis, JWs, however, continue to face harassment. They are often being summoned to police stations for “identity checks.”

- Is statistical information on people’s religious or other beliefs gathered in your country? Are there other official inquiries into religious affiliation? Are the results of such inquiries kept in official personal documents, official files, etc.? How do the people who belong to religious denominations feel about this?

Act No. 1899/1986 (Art. 3, par. 1, sub par. 12) required the indication of the bearer’s religion on identity cards. Unless a declaration to that effect was made, the identity card was not issued. On 6 April 1993, the Greek Parliament adopted a new law obliging citizens to declare their religious affiliation on their identity cards. However, according to the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization, the indication of religion on identity cards had no legal force and the notion of citizenship alone is paramount. A subsequent draft amendment making the declaration of religion optional on personal identity documents was withdrawn. The reference to religion apparently reflected a religious tradition that satisfies the demands of the Greek Orthodox Church. According to the Ministry of Justice, the controversy involved the right to declare one’s religion in accordance with international law. The religious identification of citizens should only be necessary in private matters such as inheritance or of funeral rites. The representatives of the Orthodox Church echoed the latter argument, favoring an optional indication of religion on identity cards. All non-governmental representatives were opposed to any indication of religion on identity cards because it might become a basic source of discrimination and intolerance on account of religion or belief. They underscored the unconstitutionality of the existing law and its incompatibility with international law. Attention was drawn in particular to the resolution B3-0061/1993 of the European Parliament on the compulsory mention of religion on Greek identity cards: “... C. Whereas the compulsory mention of religion on identity documents violates the fundamental freedoms of the individual as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, ... E. Recalling that freedom of opinion and religious freedom are part of the foundations of a constitutional State and are the exclusive province of human conscience, 1. Calls on the Greek Government to amend the current legal provisions once and for all to abolish any mention, even optional, of religion on new Greek identity cards and not to bow to pressure from the Orthodox hierarchy...; 2. Considers that the role which religion has played or still plays in any society, however important it may be and without value judgments, in no way justifies the requirement to mention religion on an identity card.”

After a prolonged opposition by the Orthodox Church, which went as far as undertaking a referendum to demonstrate that the government’s decision to remove mention of religious identity from the identity cards was contrary to the general public spirit, and which led to the collection of approximately 3.000.000 signatures, the government declared illegal any mention of ones religious identity on an ID card following the provisions of law 2472/1997 on the Protection of the individual from personal data processing . Since 2001 all identity cards issued by the Greek authorities do not refer to ones religious identity.

Following the recommendations of the Authority on the Protection of Personal Data, mention of religion is also declared illegal on birth certificates, family status certificates and its removal from all public documents is recommended. Nevertheless, often have been recorded cases of overriding the law and the most characteristic case has been that of birth registration, which since 1976 has been clearly distinguished from baptism by Article 22 of law 344/1976; yet, public registries often prepare the birth certificate without registering the name of the child and they include the name only after they receive the certification of baptism. Finally, it is worth noting that though in Greece civil marriage was established since 1982, the Orthodox Church continues till today to oppose more and more its propagation. Cases have been reported where priests refused to baptise a child whose god-father or god-mother have had a civil marriage, cases where a marriage could not take place because the best man or best woman had been married in a civil marriage or cases where a priest refused to burry someone who has had a civil marriage (to be noted here that neither civil burial nor cremation are alternative possibilities in Greece). Mention of religion on all public documents does not only make the carrier vulnerable to religious discrimination but also often members of minority religious communities have encountered problems of employment, in particular in public offices, once their documents were examined.

10. Conscientious Objection to Compulsory Military Service

- Is there a system of substitution of compulsory military service with an alternative civilian service in your country? Under whose control is the mechanism of substitution? What is the role of the military in it? Please provide information on how the conscientious objection is shown to and accepted by the government. What is the scope of beliefs eligible for conscientious objection? Is judicial review available? If yes, please give details on its structure. Please provide translations of relevant provisions.

- Where do most conscientious objectors actually serve their alternative services? Is this the place prescribed by law?

- Have any people been sentenced for refusing to perform compulsory military service in the last ten years? What were their sentences? How many actually spent time in prison? How long were their sentences? Do the prosecution authorities typically enforce the law?

- Has anyone been sentenced for refusing to perform alternative service? What were their sentences? How many were actually imprisoned, and for how long? Do the prosecution authorities typically enforce this law?

- How long is the alternative service compared to ordinary military service?

- If people serving military service develop conscientious objection during its course, can they substitute the military service with the alternative civilian service? Please provide examples and details on the mechanism with which this change is effected.

After the Second World War, Greek law did not have a provision for civilian service for the conscientious objectors who refused to bear arms. In 1977, the Greek State instituted through its Act No. 731, an exceptional obligation to military service for a period of time twice the length of the obligatory military service for those refusing to bear arms because of their religious beliefs. In 1988, Article 1, paragraph 2, of Act No. 1763, provided that those refusing to bear arms because of their religious or ideological beliefs were obliged to serve full or partial military duty twice the length of that which, in each case, was required from the category in which they belonged. Article 5, paragraph 3 of the same Act provided for the imprisonment for a time equal to the duration of the regular military service of those who refused to serve even their unarmed military service. After their release from prison, such people were discharged from the call to enlist. Based on the provisions mentioned above, the conscientious objectors capable of serving were obliged to perform military service. Those refusing to serve were referred to the military court with the charge of disobedience (Art. 70 of the Military Penal Code). This charge was punishable by penalties ranging from six months of prison to death penalty, depending on the situation in the country (e.g. war, general mobilization, peace, etc.). Act No. 1763 also exempts religious ministers of the so-called “known religions” from military service

In January 1998, the Greek parliament implemented Law No. 2510/97 that provides alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors. Conscientious objectors generally characterized the legislation as a “positive first step” but criticized the 36-month alternative service term, which is double the regular 18-month period of military service. The length of the term is only one of the problematic areas of the overall philosophy and implementation of this law, which in many aspects is of punitive character. According to this law, the cities of Athens and Thessaloniki and the towns of origin and residence of the conscientious objectors are excluded from being possible places for civilian service. By Ministerial decision, the cities of Patras, Heraklion, Larissa and Volos are also exempted. Ordinary soldiers, meanwhile, have to serve in places far from their city of residence only for the first 9 months. Apart from the length of the civilian term, probably the most problematic area in the concept and practice of this law is the amount of money granted to each conscientious objector. According to a Ministerial decision, on the implementation of the law, only 50.000 drachmas (around 165 ECU) are granted per month. With this amount of money, conscientious objectors cannot meet the expenses that the choice of the alternative civilian service invokes. Taking into consideration the fact that conscientious objectors have to stay away from their homes for a considerable amount of time (36 months), accommodations, travel expenses, food and clothing cannot be covered with only 50.000 drachmas that is almost one quarter of the minimum salary in Greece. This provision aims at discouraging conscientious objectors from pursuing civilian service and, in fact, making it possible only for those who meet some economic standards in order to take advantage of the existence of the law. Moreover, the provisions for alternative civilian service can be suspended (at any time) with a decision of the Ministry of Defence in case of war. This practically means that the rights of conscientious objectors are not fully guaranteed. Conscientious objectors may be called up, at any moment, to participate in the compulsory alternative military service. In addition, the law does not allow for the right of developing conscientious objection during military service. Finally, conscientious objectors that participate in unionist activities or strikes during the period of their civilian term will have their right to civilian service revoked and will serve the remaining of their service in the army.^[93]

In addition, the practical implementation of the law seems to be punitive character. The bureaucratic procedure is very time-consuming due to the number of documents that the conscription authorities require from the conscientious objectors. First, the application process requires various documents that prove the applicant has never been convicted or prosecuted for crimes relating to the use of weapons or to illegal violence, something that is not required for military service. Then the conscientious objectors must proceed with an examination by a military doctor. In case they refuse to be examined, conscientious objectors will have their petition automatically rejected. The personal file of each candidate for alternative civilian service is then sent to the Headquarters of the Conscription Department of the Army’s General Staff and to the Special Committee of Article 20 of the Conscientious Objectors Law. The practical role of this Committee is the “examination” of the conscientious objectors’ beliefs. This Committee consists of a Supreme Administrative Court judge, two university Professors, and two army officers. The Committee studies the files and may ask at some point for an interview with the candidates. In case a conscientious objector fails to present himself to the committee, his absence will be taken under consideration but his petition will not necessarily and automatically be rejected. The Minister of Defence is the final authority to decide whether someone will be recognized as conscientious objector and where he will have to serve his civilian requirement. However, conscientious objectors do have the right to ask for a judicial review of the Ministerial decision by a civil court. Finally, the conscription authority coordinates the logistics of the conscientious objector’s civilian service such as contacting the organization the CO will be stationed. This organization is required to report to the conscription authorities the conscientious objector start and finish -time of the CO’s service and if he stops his duties without permission. In contrast to other EU countries, the whole procedure in Greece is taking place under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence. This leads to severe doubts of whether the treatment of conscientious objectors can be fair and unbiased.

Furthermore, in October 1997 it was reported that a new bill regarding Universal Defence was going to be presented before the Parliament for amendments. The proposal concerned compulsory training in universal defence units of all women (between 18-50 years old) and for all men (between 18-65 years old) who are not currently serving the armed forces or the National Guard. The exact duration of this training remains unknown since it was not stipulated in the proposal. However, the draft law requires imprisonment between six and twelve months for failure to report for service. During periods of general mobilization imprisonment might be increased to a maximum of three years. This bill contained no provisions for conscientious objectors to deny their participation in this training by registering their objection.

The introduction of alternative civilian service was the outcome of a long public discourse about the constitutionality of such a provision in the Greek legal system. According to the Greek Constitution,^[94] all Greek citizens are equal before the law and have all the same rights and obligations. Article 4, paragraph 6, in particular, stipulates the obligation of all Greeks to contribute to the defence of their country. In addition, Article 13, paragraph 4 provides that “no person shall be exempt from discharging his obligations to the State nor may he refuse to comply with the law by reason of his religious convictions”. The counter-argument for the introduction of alternative civilian service, mainly from human rights activists and non-governmental organizations, was that freedom of religious conscience, according to the very same Constitution, is inviolable^[95] and that based on the respective provisions of Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 5, paragraph 1, it “is the primary obligation of the state to respect and protect the value of human beings” since “all persons have the right to develop their personality freely”. ^[96]

Other jurists and non-governmental representatives cited instead Article 13, paragraph 1, which provides that “freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. Enjoyment of individual and civil rights does not depend on the individual’s religious beliefs.” Some argued that alternative civilian service could also make a contribution to the country’s defence. Others favoured alternative civilian service because Article 2, paragraph 1, stipulates that “it is the primary obligation of the State to respect and protect the value of the human being,” and Article 5, paragraph 1, states, “all persons shall have the right to develop their personality freely.”

In 1988, a draft law for unarmed or social service was submitted to the Greek Parliament. The provisions of this draft were, however, adjudged by the Central Law Preparatory Committee to be in direct conflict with Article 4, paragraph 6, and Article 13, paragraph 4, of the Constitution. Thus, that draft did not reach the voting stage. In 1991, the Ministry of Defence decided to submit a new draft for the unarmed or social (civilian) service. For this reason, the Ministry requested the opinion of the Legal Council of State on the question: “Is the adoption of the institution of social (civilian) service for those refusing to bear arms and to serve even unarmed service in the Armed Forces due to their religious beliefs or reasons of conscience in accordance with the Constitution?”

The Legal Council met on 10 October 1991 and issued opinion No. 669/90 in which it stated unanimously that the Constitution, in regard to the reasons for institution of unarmed or social duty, was definitive, and superseded customary law. This is because, on the one hand, the provision of Article 13, paragraph 4, does not allow for religious objections and, on the other, Article 4, paragraph 6, does not allow for objections of an ideological or moral character. It is thus clear that the quest for a constitutional justification for conscientious objectors in the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 6, of the Constitution was fruitless. Not only did it pre-empt any other constitutional justification, but it also emphasized this important provision as an immovable constitutional obstacle to the acceptance of religious objections and the erosion of the character and content of the military obligation. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned facts and justification, the Legal Council of the State was unanimous in its opinion that the adoption of the draft law on the social (civilian) service would be contrary to the Constitution.

Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Defense, special measures were to be applied in favor of conscientious objectors with regard to both the serving of a sentence and the place of detention. According to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Greek State, despite the provisions of the Constitution relating to defense, has modified its stand by adopting a law providing for unarmed alternative service with certain privileges favoring conscientious objectors. Nevertheless, conscientious objectors, especially Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses, have refused to wear uniforms, salute the flag or accept the period specified for performing alternative service. The Ministry of Defense claimed that the JWs, by asking to be exempted from national service, were asking to receive treatment that would discriminate against other Greek citizens. The authorities maintained that the JWs must, as Greek citizens, respect the law in force and bear in mind the particular position of Greece, a small state that must protect its territorial integrity. According to the Ministry of Justice, the JWs were being prosecuted not because of their beliefs but because of having violated the law. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that the authorities were ready to make concessions provided they had no impact on vital national issues. The impact the Greek authorities seemed to have in mind is any impairment of the obligation to perform national military service.

Non-governmental representatives claim that it was necessary for the Greek State to adopt legislation recognizing the right of conscientious objection with respect to military service in order to put an end to infringements on the religious freedom of conscientious objectors, in particular JWs. The well-known Exemption of Ministers of Religion Act (Act No. 1763/1988) is still not fully applied. The UN Special Rapporteur Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, in his report on religious freedom in Greece drew attention to Resolution 1989/59 of 8 March 1989 of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, reaffirmed inter alia in 1991 (Resolution 1991/65 of 6 March 1991) and in 1993 (Resolution 1993/84 of 10 March 1993), which recognizes “the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (paragraph 1). It recommends to Member States “with a system of compulsory military service, where such provision has not already been made, that they introduce for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service” (paragraph 3) which “should be in principle of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature” (paragraph 4). ^[97]

The significant pressure from various international organizations on Greece resulted in the final voting of the 2510/97 Law in June 1997 and its implementation ten years after the first attempt in January 1998.^[98] Although this law also recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to switch at any time from alternative civilian service to military service --the person must have completed a minimum of six months of civilian service (Article 21 paragraphs 7 and 8)-- it contains no specific provision for conscientious objection developed during military service. Article 18, paragraph 4 (a) states that: “those who have carried arms for whatever length of time in the Greek or foreign armed forces or in the security forces” cannot be considered as conscientious objectors. Moreover, according to Article 21, paragraph 2 of the law conscientious objectors applying for alternative civilian service have to report to undertake their alternative service within the time-frame of a period which is determined as starting from the date a convocation for alternative service is sent to them by the relevant military authorities of the Ministry of National Defence, otherwise they face the charge of insubordination. However, the period of time given to conscientious objectors to report for alternative service is not specified in the law and could therefore be open to any interpretation. According to Paragraph 5 (d) of the same Article, conscientious objectors who carry out trade unionist activities or participate in a strike during the period of their alternative service will have their right to alternative civilian service or unarmed military service revoked, and therefore, according to Paragraph 6 of the Article, will have to serve the remaining part of their military obligations in the army.

In the meantime, a significant number of conscientious objectors ended up in prison. The majority of them were Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses. Based on reports from non-governmental sources, the figures regarding the number of JWs in prison as of 1 June 1996 were as follows: Kassandra Agricultural Prison 58; Kassavetia-Volos Agricultural Prison 46; Avlona Military Prison 85; Sindos Military Prison 164. The total number of objectors was 353. The total duration of sentences imposed on the JW was 1,147 years. The total amount of sentences served was 296 years.

In August 1999, the Ombudsman’s office, reacting to this practice, issued a series of constructive recommendations, including the partial “demilitarization” of alternative service. These recommendations also included the abolition of the unconstitutional provisions for changing the status of a CO back into that of a draftee, the decrease of the length of service, the introduction of the same special categories of shorter service as for military service and the inclusion of NGOs in the groups of institutions in which such service can be carried out. This report finally included the recommendation for the introduction of an autonomous national body to govern and supervise the effectiveness of the alternative service without prejudice or wrong perceptions about the COs. If these recommendations were adopted the Ombudsman’s office believed that the punitive character of the alternative service would be abolished. In his report the Ombudsman found that: “the legal recognition of the alternative political-social service implements the constitutionally imposed obligation of the state to respect the moral and religious conscience of the citizens, and to protect its integrity even if they are called to serve the constitutionally imposed duty of national and social solidarity. As a consequence, the service of this duty in this form does not constitute a charity but a pure right. Many of the problems seem to be directly linked with a latent but widespread perception according to which the organization of the alternative service is not the implementation of a constitutional principle but a simple concession of the law-makers. The most characteristic manifestation of this misunderstanding of law 2510/97 is the clause in Article 21.5 according to which, under specific disciplinary and criminal penalties, the “fall” from the status of CO is designated if he doesn’t exercise his duty with diligence, as if the alternative service is not a right but a charity of which he didn’t prove worthy of accepting. The same seems to be the case in relation to other inadequate, severe, and openly “punitive” clauses” (Ombudsman’s Special Report, 1999, translated from Greek). The government promised vaguely to implement some improvements before the end of 1999 but did not do so.^[99]

Over 2000 persons have been granted conscientious objector status since the passing of the relevant law. The great majority were JWs refusing to serve on religious grounds. However, due to the difficulties described in the Amnesty International report above, 11 JWs have been denied CO status or have had their status revoked. The reasons for this treatment were their failure to comply in time with some of the typical administrative and bureaucratic requirements, documents that never arrive on time or that get lost on the way. Many of them risk being imprisoned or placed in the insubordination status not of their own fault but for entirely insignificant reasons arising out of the inappropriate co-ordination of the services of the Ministry of Defense and because of the gaps in the procedure of the legislation. A lawyer acting on behalf of the JWs, Panos Mpitsaxis, wrote in June 2000 to the Minister of Defense reminding him the relevant decisions of the ECHR against Greece, the obligations of Greece before these decisions and other relevant international instruments asking for a solution to the problem before it is too late.

On the issue of alternative civilian service, based on the Thlimenos judgement, in order for Greece to comply with the decisions of the ECHR, the existing legal framework concerning alternative service was completed by Act no. 2915 (25.5.2001) article 27 par 1-3 whereby it is decided that all penalties, which occurred before the application of the new Act no. 2510/1997 on alternative civil service, due to disobedience based on religious or ideological convictions, are deleted from the certificate of ones criminal register. The deletion must take place ex officio or after a request made by the interested party.

After complaint no. 8/2000 was submitted by the Quaker Council for European Affairs against Greece to the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) concerning Act No. 2510/1997, the Committee concluded by six votes against three that “the duration of civilian service is 18 months longer than that of the corresponding military service, be it of 18, 19 or 21 months, or reduced to 12, 6, or 3 months. A conscientious objector may therefore perform alternative civilian service for a period of up to 39 months. The Committee considers that these 18 additional months, during which the persons concerned are denied the right to earn their living in an occupation entered upon freely, do not come within reasonable limits, compared to the duration of military service. It therefore considers that this additional duration, because of its excessive character, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on “the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon”, and is contrary to Article 1 para. 2 of the European Social Charter.”

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON COs IN GREECE

GREECE

No satisfaction: the failures of alternative civilian service

On 1 January 1998 Law 2510/97 on conscription, which had been passed by the Greek Parliament in June 1997, entered into force. For the first time, the law included a provision for alternative civilian service, a move that Amnesty International welcomed after years of campaigning for the release of conscientious objectors who were until then serving sentences of up to four years’ imprisonment for insubordination.

Law 2510/97 states that conscientious objector status and civilian alternative service or unarmed military service are available to conscripts declaring themselves opposed to the personal use of arms for fundamental reasons of conscience based on religious, philosophical, ideological or moral convictions (Article 18, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3). However, Amnesty International is not only concerned that some of its provisions still fall short of international standards, but also its application remains unsatisfactory or they are clearly discriminatory against conscientious objectors.

International Standards on Conscientious Objection

Recommendation No. R (87) 8 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States of the Council of Europe Regarding Conscientious Objection to Compulsory Military Service of 9 April 1987 recommends that “[a]lternative service shall not be of a punitive nature. Its duration shall, in comparison to that of military service, remain within reasonable limits” (§10).

The 1987 Recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Minister asserts that “applications for conscientious objector status shall be made in ways and within time limits to be determined having due regard to the requirement that the procedure for the examination of an application should, as a rule, be completed before the individual concerned is actually enlisted in the forces”. However, the Recommendation also states “the law may also provide for the possibility of applying for and obtaining conscientious objector status in cases where the requisite conditions for conscientious objection appear during military service or periods of military training after initial service”.

On 11 March 1993, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on respect for human rights in the European Community. In the section on conscientious objection, it called upon Member States to guarantee “conscientious objector status can be applied for at any time, including military service...”

In theory: the shortcomings of Law 2510/97

This law states that alternative civilian service (Article 19, paragraph 1) will be 18 months longer than military service. For example, a conscientious objector will be required to serve 36 months of civilian service, as opposed to 18 months of military service in the Territorial Army.

According to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the law, in case of war the dispositions established for alternative service can be suspended upon decision from the Ministry of Defense. Conscientious objectors performing alternative civilian service will then be incorporated into the compulsory unarmed military service. Although this law also recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to switch from alternative civilian service at any time to military service --the person must have completed a minimum length of six months of civilian service (Article 21 paragraphs 7 and 8)-- it contains no specific provision for conscientious objection developed during military service. Article 18, paragraph 4 (a) states that: “those who have carried arms for whatever length of time in the Greek or foreign armed forces or in the security forces “ cannot be considered as conscientious objectors.

Moreover, according to Article 21, paragraph 2, of the law, conscientious objectors applying for alternative civilian service have to report to undertake their [alternative] service within the time-frame of a period which is determined [as starting] from the date a convocation for alternative service is sent to them by the relevant military authorities of the Ministry of National Defense, otherwise they face being charged with insubordination. However, the period of time given to conscientious objectors to report for alternative service is not specified by the law and could therefore be open to any interpretation.

According to Paragraph 5 (d) of the same article, conscientious objectors who carry out trade unionist activities or participate in a strike during the period of their alternative service will have their right to alternative civilian service or unarmed military service revoked. Therefore, according to Paragraph 6 of the article, they will have to serve the remaining part of their military obligations in the army.

Amnesty International is also concerned that the Minister of Defense decides on the initial applications for conscientious objector status on the advice of a committee composed of civilian and military members (Article 20 paragraph 1). Moreover, Article 21, paragraph 3 (b) considers “those who serve an alternative civil social service [...] as quasi enlisted in the armed forces.

Discrimination in practice

Amnesty International has also received reports that the application of Law 2510/97 remains unsatisfactory or is clearly discriminatory against conscientious objectors. In at least 25 cases, conscientious objectors who performed civilian alternative service in health institutions throughout Greece (such as in Rethymnon, Siderokastro/Serres, Nigrita/Serres, Drama, Avlida/Evoia, Mytilini) were subjected to punitive measures. These include working hours not comparable with those imposed on military service (they are obliged to work seven days a week with a total of up to 56 to 68 working hours); no right of leave and threats of punitive measures being taken against them including the revocation of their right to alternative civilian service if they refuse to comply with such hours.

Applicants are given very short time to gather all the documents they are requested to submit to the authorities for their recognition of conscientious objector status. For example, Dimitris Pakkidis’ application for conscientious objection was rejected on the ground that he had not respected the deadline (seven days from the time of his application on 23 March 1998, that is on 31 March 1998) given to him to produce all necessary documents to support his request. These documents include: a formal application in which they list their civil status, usual address, education and professional qualifications and indicate the type of service they wish to perform (unarmed or alternative civilian service); a personal statement in which they express the reasons for their objection to military service; a certificate issued by the relevant police and forestry authorities (both from their place of birth and their place of residence) that they are not holding a gun or a hunting license, nor have they ever applied to get such licenses; provide a certificate issued by the relevant prosecutor’s office that they were not involved in any crime related to the use of weapons, ammunitions or illegal violence; a copy of their police record.

The conscientious objectors who apply on the ground of religious beliefs should also include a certified copy of their identity card (for consultative basis only i.e., not submitting them is not a reason for refusal of conscientious objector status); a certification from the church or other relevant authority stating the candidate’s religion and where possible the date of their conversion to that religion; a similar certification for the other members of his family if they follow the same religion as the applicant; certification of education from the secondary school or lyceum where they have studied, mentioning their participation in or exemption from religious education; certificate of military status for the other male members of the applicant’s family if they were exempted from enlistment in the armed forces on the ground of their religious beliefs).

Amnesty International is concerned about the reports that at least six applications brought by conscientious objectors for alternative civilian service were rejected on the ground, which may have been arbitrarily discriminatory against the applicants. All are now charged with insubordination. Decisions from the Council of State are pending in at least three cases where the applicants alleged that they were unable to submit their documents in time because of the lack of cooperation from the relevant authorities, which refused to provide them with the certificate requested. In another case, conscientious objector, Christos Kiourktsidis, lost his status as a result of an administrative error. When Christos Kiourktsidis reported for alternative civilian service in Avlida (Evoia) on 20 August 1998 as he requested, he was told by a civil servant to come back four days later, as the manager of the institution was on vacation and she did not know what to do with him. However, when the manager returned from holidays the following day and saw that the conscientious objector was absent on the exact day of his presentation, he informed the conscription office at Serres. Christos Kiourktsidis has appealed to the Council of State against the decision revoking his status as conscientious objector, and a decision has yet to be made.

One conscientious objector, Yannis Farkonas is currently serving a 4 years and 20 days’ sentence charged with draft evasion for failing to respond to military orders. He was absent at the time when his call-up papers were sent to his parents’ address and he had not had time to prepare all the documents required for his application for alternative civilian service upon his return (four days before, the deadline he had been given expired). Michail Kouvardas was also sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for draft evasion on the ground that he did not report to the health commission on the appointed day.

Moreover, although the law states clearly in its Article 21, paragraph 3(d) that a monthly salary should be paid to conscientious objectors who opt for alternative civilian service since the institution is unable to offer them food and housing, there are reports that some institutions (in Iannena, Karditsa, Mytilini, Avlida/Evoia, Siderokastro/Serres, Nigrita/Serres and Kerkyra) refuse to pay the agreed monthly salary of 58,000 drachmas. Housing of conscientious objectors also remains inadequate in some instances. For example, in his letter to the Ombudsman, dated 18 May 1999, conscientious objector Stergios Tselepis complained of having been obliged to stay in a 12 square meters room (shared with another conscientious objector), which contained only one bed and a small wardrobe. On 19 July 1999, twenty-two conscientious objectors who are performing alternative civilian service at the Center for the Care of Children in Karditsa wrote to the ombudsman complaining about the poor housing conditions for all 6 of them. On the grounds of economic restrictions, they are housed in two dormitories (35 and 30 square meters respectively). They have to share all facilities with about 150 other children suffering from serious mental illnesses.

Amnesty International’s recommendations to the Greek authorities

· Amnesty International is concerned about the punitive length of the alternative civilian service (18 months longer than military service). Amnesty International urges the Greek authorities to review the length of the alternative civilian service with a view to bringing it in line with international standards and recommendations.

· Amnesty International considers that the right to perform alternative civilian service should never be derogated from, even in time of war or public emergency, and calls on the authorities to amend Article 24, paragraph 2 of the law accordingly.

· With regard to the time limit for registering conscientious objection (Article 21, paragraph 2), Amnesty International believes that conscientious objectors should have the right to claim conscientious objector status at any time, both up to and after entering the armed forces and calls upon the authorities to review this article of the law.

· Amnesty International believes that alternative civilian service should be strictly under civilian authority, including the examination of a candidate’s application for recognition of his status as conscientious objector. The organization therefore urges the Greek authorities to review Articles 20, paragraph 1 and 21, paragraph 3 (d) of Law 2510/97, both of which de facto put alternative civilian service under military authority.

· Amnesty International also urges the Greek authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Michail Kourvardas and Yannis Farkonas, conscientious objectors currently serving sentences of up to four years’ imprisonment. Amnesty International considers them to be prisoners of conscience.

· The organization urges the Greek authorities to take all necessary steps to ensure that all discriminatory measures against conscientious objectors who opted to perform alternative civilian service are put to an immediate end.

Recommendations for abolishing all forms of religious discrimination in the Greek Constitution and the legislative order:

M. P. Stathopoulos, former minister of Justice, recommends the following revisions in the constitution and in the legislative order to combat violations of freedom of religion and belief:

1) Removal of the preamble to the Constitution which calls upon the divine “in the name of the Consubstantial and Indivisible Holy Trinity”

2) Removal of article 3 of the Constitution that refers to a “prevailing” religion

3) Removal of par 2 of article 13 referring “Proselytism is prohibited”

4) Abolition of law no. 1363/1938 and of its modification to law no. 1672/1939, which stipulate penalties for those that proselytize.

5) Removal of the phrase “development of religious conscience” as the objective of education, in article 16§2 of the Constitution

6) Removal from article 1§1 of law no 1566/1985 reference to the transmission of “the original facts of the Orthodox Christian tradition” as an objective of the primary and secondary education.

7) Revision of article 33§2 of the Constitution which anticipates the Christian religious oath for the President of the Republic excluding from this position any Greek citizen who is not an Orthodox Christian.

8) Addition to article 59 concerning the oath of deputies in Parliament allowing a political oath, thus acknowledging atheists and those believing in religions which forbid a religious oath.

9) Removal of the obligatory or optional inscription of ones religion on the identity card (article 3§1 of law 1599/1896, as revised by §1 of article 39 of law 1832/1989 and was replaced by article 2 of law 1988/1991 which brought back the obligatory inscription), which indirectly creates discrimination between citizens and, particularly against members of religious minorities.

10) The abolition of all those laws that allow the state to intervene in matters that are strictly the domain of the Orthodox Church provided this Church autonomy does not lead to the violation human rights.

11) Revision of those articles concerning civil marriage as to make it obligatory for all citizens, providing all, irrespective of their religious conscience, with the legal rights secured by the state, thus abolishing the exercise of public authority by religious functionaries of any denomination.

12) Providing the possibility for a civil or secular burial for those who request it.

13) Providing the possibility of cremation for those who request it.

During the period Michalis Stathopoulos was Minister of Justice (2000-2001) he was able pass the removal of one’s religion from identity cards, following the implementation of a recommendation made to the government by the Authority on the Protection of Personal Data.^[100]

---

^[1] For more information on the relationship between Orthodoxy and nationhood see Paschalis M. Kitromilides “‘Imagined Communities’ and the Origins of the National Question in the Balkans” in Martin Blinkhorn and Thanos Veremis (eds.) Modern Greece: Nationalism & Nationality, Sage-ELIAMEP publications, 1990, pp. 23-66

^[2] Pollis Adamantia, “Ellada: Ena provlimatiko Kosmiko Kratos” (Greece: A problematic Secular State) in Christopoulos Dimitris (ed.) (1999), Nomika Zitimata Thriskeftikis Eterotitas stin Ellada (Issues of Religious Diversity in Greece), Kritiki/KEMO Publications, Athens, p. 192

^[3] Christos L. Rozakis, “The international protection of minorities in Greece”, in Kevin Featherstone & Kostas Ifantis (eds), Greece in a changing Europe, Between European integration and Balkan disintegration?, Manchester University Press, 1996, p.98

^[4] http://www.mfa.gr/foreign/musminen.htm (address temporarily inaccessible in mid-2002)

^[5] Constitution of Greece, available at: http://confinder.richmond.edu/greek_2001.html (English)

^[6] Full text available at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/a487fe023d3fe5fd8025671b005b82b3?Opendocument Greece’s answer to the Amor report:

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/404869402e9cc46cc1256605003fa825?Opendocument#Annex

^[7] Full text available at:

http://www.coe.int/T/E/human%5Frights/Ecri/1%2DECRI/2%2DCountry%2Dby%2Dcountry%5Fapproach/Greece/

^[8] The case of Kokkinakis vs. Greece on the issue of proselytism in accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1993): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/412.txt

^[9] The cases of Manoussakis and others vs. Greece (1996) and Pentidis and others vs. Greece (1997)-in the latter Greece granted an authorization to open a place of worship to avoid another judgement against it- on the issue of religious freedom and religious establishments in accordance with Article 9 of the ECHR:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/659.txt and http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/hejud/sift/635.txt

^[10] The cases of Valsamis and Efstratiou (1996) on the issue of school education and parading in accordance with Article 13 of the ECHR in conjunction with Articles 9 and 2 of the First Protocol (1996):

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/597.txt and http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/592.txt

^[11] U.N. Committee for the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations – Greece, 2002

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/7ad07bede689f193c1256bd70037dce9/$FILE/G0240976.doc

^[12] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/412.txt

^[13] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/491.txt

^[14] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/659.txt

^[15] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/597.txt

^[16] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/592.txt

^[17] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/641.txt

^[18] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/HEJUD/sift/624.txt

^[19] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/hejud/sift/635.txt

^[20] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/199810/canea%20cath.%20church%20batj.doc

^[21] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/199810/larissis%20batj.doc

^[22] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/199910/tsavachidis%20-%2028802jnv.gc%20210199e.doc

^[23] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/200201/serif%20batj.doc

^[24] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/200207/thlimmenos.batj.doc

^[25] Ch. Papastathis, State and Church in Greece, in State and Church in the European Union, Gerhard Robbers (ed.) – Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 1996, p.76 cited by Naskou-Perraki P., (2000) The Legal Framework of Religious Freedom in Greece, Ant. Sakkoulas Publishers p. 15

^[26] see Dagtoglou Prodromos, « Constitutional and Administrative Law » in K. Kerameas et al., eds, Introduction to Greek Law (1993) (cited in Religious Liberty http://www.house.gov/csce/LOCRELLIB1.pdf)

^[27] Stathopoulos P. Mihalis (1999), “I Sintagmatiki Katohirosi tis Thriskeftikis Eleftherias kai oi Sheseis Politeias-Ekklisias” [Constitutional Consolidation of Religious Freedom and State-Church Relations] in Christopoulos op. cit., pp.201-206

^[28] Stephanos Stavrou, “Citizenship and the protection of minorities”, in Featherston & Ifantis op. cit. p. 121

^[29] Religious Liberty: The Legal Framework in Selected OSCE Countries – Greece updated 2000, (report prepared for the CSCE by the Law Library, Library of Congress) p.56 http://www.house.gov/csce/LOCRELLIB1.pdf

^[30] ibid. pp. 56-7; Naskou-Perraki op. cit., p. 17

^[31] Pollis Adamantia (1992), “Greek National Identity: Religious Minorities, Rights and European Norms”, in Journal of Modern Greek Studies, vol. 10, p.180

^[32] Sotirelis George (1999), “O horismos kratous-ekklisias: I anatheorisi pou den egine…” (Separation of state-church: the revision that never took place…) in Christopoulos op. cit. pp. 22-3

^[33]National Human Rights Commission (March 2001), “Recommendations on issues of religious freedom” (Particularly issues concerning compliance with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights) in Report 2001, National Commission for Human Rights, Hellenic Republic, January 2002, p.95 Available in Greek at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/greek/articles_2002/pr_2002_01_22_01.doc

^[34] Naskou-Perraki op. cit. p. 22

^[35] ibid., pp.21-22

^[36] Rozakis (1996), op. cit. pp. 102, 114

^[37] Konidaris Ioannis, Nomiki Theoria kai Praxi gia tous “Martyres tou Iehova”, (Legal Theory and Practice for the “Jehovah’s Witnesses”), Sakkoulas, Athens, 1999, pp. 60

^[38] Religious Liberty http://www.house.gov/csce/LOCRELLIB1.pdf, p. 59; and Canea etc v Greece

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc2/HEJUD/199810/canea%20cath.%20church%20batj.doc

^[39] For more information on this minority see the report prepared by the Center of Documentation and Information on Minorities in Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE) Catholics of Greece, http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-greece-Catholics.doc; also the report prepared by Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights of the UN (1996)

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/a487fe023d3fe5fd8025671b005b82b3?Opendocument

^[40] For more information on this minority see the CEDIME-SEE report Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses of Greece, http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-greece-jehovah.doc

^[41] Naskou-Perraki, op.cit. p.45

^[42] see the Special Rapporteur’s Communications on Turkey, E/CN.4/1995/91 and E/CN.4/1996/95

^[43] Article 72: 1. Parliament debates and votes in Plenum on its Standing Orders, on Bills and law proposals on the subjects of articles 3, 13, 27, 28 paragraphs 2 and 3, 29 paragraph 2, 33 paragraph 3, 48, 51, 54, 86, on Bills and proposals for laws implementing the Constitution on the exercise and protection of individual rights, on Bills and law proposals on the authentic interpretation of the laws as well as on every other matter referred to Parliament in Plenum by special provision of the Constitution or for the regulation of which a special majority is required.
The Parliament in Plenum shall also authorize the budget and the financial statement of the State and of Parliament.

^[44] Naskou-Perraki pp.15-16

^[45] Naskou-Perraki, op. cit. pp.51-55

^[46] Konstantinos Tsitselikis, “The place of the mufti in the Greek state of law”, in Christopoulos op. cit. pp.274

^[47] ibid. p. 309

^[48] ibid. pp. 309-323

^[49] ibid. pp. 53-4; see St. Stavros, “The legal status of minorities in Greece today: The adequacy of their protection in light of Current Human Rights Perception,” in Journal of Modern Greek Studies, vol. 13, 1995, pp.22-3

^[50] K. Tsitselikis, “The Jurisdictions of the Mufti as a religious judge with respect to decision 405/2000 of the First Instance Court of Thiva”, Nomiko Vima (Legal Tribune), volume 49, 2001, p.589

^[51] Religious Liberty, http://www.house.gov/csce/LOCRELLIB1.pdf, p.66

^[52] ibid. p. 60

^[53] In 1998 the decision of the lower court was upheld on appeal. “The Commercial Appeal Court in Greece Orders Closure of Scientology,” Jan 18, 1997, available in Lexis-Nexis. “Critics Public and Private Keep Pressure on Scientology,” St. Petersburg Times, Mar. 29, 1999 cited in Religious Liberty

http://www.house.gov/csce/LOCRELLIB1.pdf p.58

^[54]U.S. Department of State, “Greece Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997” p. 7

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1997_hrp_report/greece.html

^[55] Tsitselikis op. cit. pp.296-7

^[56] Naskou-Perraki, op. cit., 33

^[57] ibid. 34

^[58] ibid., pp.24-5

^[59] ibid., 26 see among others D. Tsatsos, Advisory opinion for the notion of proselytism, Dikaio ke Politiki, vol. 15, p.203.

^[60] Synigoros tou Politi (Ombudsman), Annual Report for 2001 (Greek): http://www.synigoros.gr/annual_2001_gr.htm

^[61] Yiorgos Sotirelis, Thriskeia kai Ekpaidevsi kata to Syntagma kai tin Evropaiki Symvasi, Apo ton Katihismo stin Polyfonia [Religion and Education According to the Constitution and the European Convention, From Catechism to Polyfony], Sakkoulas, Athens, 1993

^[62] Naskou-Perraki op. cit. pp. 23-4 

^[63] ibid. pp. 50-55; Tsitselikis, op. cit. pp.315-6; see also, Nota Kyriazis, Feminism and the Status of Women in Greece, in D. Konstas & Th. Stavrou (eds), Greece Prepares for the 21^st Century, The W. Wilson Center Press, Washington, D.C., 1995

^[64] Ethnos, 23/12/01.

^[65] Tsitselikis op. cit. pp. 304-5

^[66] Ethnos, 23/12/01.

^[67] Article 20 of the Greek Constitution, “1. Every person shall be entitled to receive legal protection by the courts and may plead before them his views concerning his rights or interests, as specified by law. 2. The right of a person to a prior hearing also applies in any administrative action or measure adopted at the expense of his rights or interests.” Furthermore, the guarantees of article 6 par. 1 of the European Convention for Human Rights, “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (…)”; Article 14 par. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (…)”

^[68] Tsitselikis (1999) op. cit. pp. 305-6. 320-321 also, Tsitselikis (2001) op. cit. pp.588-592

^[69] http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/greek/articles_2002/pr_2002_01_22_01.doc

^[70] Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Greece U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.170, paragraph 52 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CRC.C.15.Add.170.En?OpenDocument

^[71] Article 14 par. 1. Every person may express and propagate his thoughts orally, in writing and through the press in compliance with the laws of the State.

^[72] Religious Liberty, http://www.house.gov/csce/LOCRELLIB1.pdf p. 60; see also U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993

^[73] NCHR op. cit. pp. 96, 101

^[74] Synigoros tou Politi op. cit. (greek) http://www.synigoros.gr/annual_2001_gr.htm

^[75] Article 2, par. a) “Data of a personal nature” is any information that refers to the subject of the data. b) “Sensitive data” is any data which concern racial or national origin, political beliefs, religious or philosophical convictions, participation in an association, corporation and trade union organization, health, social care and love life, as well as information relative to penal persecutions and conviction.

^[76] Synigoros tou Politi, Special Reports 2001, http://www.synigoros.gr/reports/por_20039_2001_da.doc (greek)

^[77] Pollis Adamantia (1992), “Greek National Identity: Religious Minorities, rights and European Norms”, in Journal of Modern Greek Studies, vol. 10, pp.184-5

^[78] Naskou-Perraki, p. 30

^[79] ibid. pp. 28-9

^[80] Sotirelis, Thriskeia kai Ekpaidevsi, op. cit. italics in the original pp.23-4

^[81] CRC 2002 op. cit.

^[82] Sotirelis, op. cit. pp.247-257

^[83] Greek press September 2002

^[84] Article 9 A: All persons have the right to be protected from the collection, processing and use, especially by electronic means, of their personal data, as specified by law. The protection of personal data is ensured by an independent authority, which is established and operates as specified by law. 

^[85] Naskou-Perraki op. cit. p.29

^[86] Synigoros tou Politi op. cit. (greek) http://www.synigoros.gr/annual_2001_gr.htm

^[87] Naskou-Perraki op. cit. p.48

^[88] Synigoros tou Politi , Special Report on case 14006/01 issued on 6 August 2002.

^[89] Stephanos Stavros, “Citizenship and the protection of minorities”, in Greece in a changing Europe op.cit., pp.120-3

^[90] Text located at: http://www.mfa.gr/musminen.htm (temporary inaccessible in September 2002)

^[91] see: Greek Helsinki Monitor & Minority Rights Group-Greece (GHM-MRG-G),“Report about Compliance with the Principles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (along guidelines for state reports according to Article 25.1 of the Convention)”, 18 September 1999.

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/countries/greece/fcnm_report.doc;

GHM-MRG-H Greece: Religious Discrimination and Related Violations of International Commitments-Joint Report Developed for the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Freedom of Religion, Vienna 22 March 1999 http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/ghm22-3-1999.html;

“Human Rights in Greece: Joint Annual Report for 2000”

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/organizations/ghm/ghm_11_02_00.rtf

^[92] Sotitelis, Thriskeia kai Ekpaidevsi, op. cit. p.194

^[93]In respect to all these provisions, Amnesty International asked the Greek Government to proceed to the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience and to review the length of the alternative civilian service in order for Greece to comply with all international standards. In addition, Amnesty International “stated its belief that the right to perform alternative civilian service should never be derogated from, even in time of war or public emergency and that conscientious objectors should have the right to claim conscientious objector status at any time, both up to and after entering the armed forces. It called on the authorities to modify the law accordingly. In December, Amnesty International was informed by the office of Prime Minister, Kostas Simitis, that in the opinion of the government the new law was adequate to safeguard the right to conscientious objection but that “the experience which practical application of the law provides may lead to possible improvement in the legislation” [Amnesty International, “Report on Greece 1998”]

^[94]Article 4, paragraph 1

^[95]Article 13, paragraph 1

^[96] In the most recent amendments to the Constitution (2001) the following amendment on article 4 was included concerning alternative service: ** Interpretative clause: The provision of paragraph 6 does not preclude the law to provide mandatory provision of other services, within or outside the armed forces (alternative service), by those having substantiated conscientious objection to performing armed or military duties in general.

^[97] see report by Special Rapporteur op. cit.; also see GHM & MRG-G “Report about Compliance with the Principles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 1999 op. cit.

^[98]The history of alternative military service in Greece was “similarly adventurous” to the historical background of civilian service: Act 731 in 1977 instituted “an exceptional obligation to military service for a period of time double than that of armed obligatory military service for those refusing to bear arms due to religious beliefs”. It was only in 1988 when another act provided for the right of objection due to both, religious and ideological beliefs. The length of the alternative military term was again double in time compared to the ordinary one. Alternative military service meant in practice military service: serving the army but without bearing arms. As expected, alternative military service was considered to be against the beliefs of conscientious objectors. They usually refused to comply with that law and ended up in jail.

^[99] International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, “Human Rights in the OSCE Region: the Balkans, the Caucasus, Europe, Central Asia and North America”, Report 2000: Greece (Events of 1999). http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/ihf2000-Greece-english.PDF

^[100] Stathopoulos , op. cit., pp.201-206