1)

Mr. and Mrs. Kokkinakis were prosecuted for proselytizing Orthodox Christians, which was made a
criminal offense under Greek Law no. 1363/1938.

They were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment, which could be converted into a pecuniary
penalty, along with fines and confiscation of materials they intended to distribute.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined whether this prosecution violated Article 9 of
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects freedom of thought, conscience,
and religion.

The ECHR acknowledged that states have a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from improper
proselytism but stressed the importance of balancing this with the right to manifest one's religion or
belief.

The Court found that while the aim of protecting individuals from improper proselytism was
legitimate, the Greek courts did not adequately establish how the actions of Mr. Kokkinakis
constituted improper proselytism.

Therefore, the ECHR ruled that Mr. Kokkinakis's conviction was not necessary in a democratic society
and violated his right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the ECHR.

This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting individuals from improper proselytism
and respecting the freedom of individuals to manifest their religious beliefs, as guaranteed by
international human rights law.

Facts:

1. Mr. and Mrs. Kokkinakis, who were Jehovah's Witnesses, attempted to proselytize an
Orthodox Christian, Mrs. Kyriakaki.

2. They visited Mrs. Kyriakaki's home, insisting on discussing their beliefs and reading from a
book on Scriptures.

3. The Greek courts found them guilty of proselytism, sentencing them to imprisonment, fines,
and confiscation of materials.

Legal Issue: The legal issue revolves around whether the prosecution and conviction of Mr. and Mrs.
Kokkinakis for proselytism violated their right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Rule of Law:

1. Freedom of Religion (ECHR Article 9): This article guarantees the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs in
worship, observance, practice, and teaching.
 2. Prescribed by Law: Any interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of religion must
be prescribed by law.

3. Legitimate Aim: Interference with the right to freedom of religion must pursue a legitimate
aim, such as public safety, protection of public order, health, or morals, or the rights and
freedoms of others.

4. Necessary in a Democratic Society: Any interference with the right to freedom of religion must
be necessary in a democratic society to achieve the legitimate aim pursued. It must be
proportionate and not excessive in relation to the aim pursued.

Application of the Rule of Law:

1. Prescribed by Law: The ECHR acknowledged that Greek Law no. 1363/1938 prescribed
proselytism as a criminal offense.

2. Legitimate Aim: The Greek government argued that the aim was to protect the rights and
freedoms of others, specifically Orthodox Christians, from improper proselytism.

3. Necessary in a Democratic Society: The ECHR found that while the aim of protecting
individuals from improper proselytism was legitimate, the prosecution and conviction of Mr.
and Mrs. Kokkinakis were not necessary in a democratic society. The Greek courts failed to
sufficiently establish how their actions constituted improper proselytism, and thus, the
interference with their freedom of religion was not proportionate to the aim pursued.

In conclusion, the ECHR ruled that the conviction of Mr. and Mrs. Kokkinakis violated their right to
freedom of religion under Article 9 of the ECHR because it was not necessary in a democratic society
to achieve the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

2)
Facts:

1. Mr. Manoussakis, along with other Jehovah's Witnesses, rented a room in Heraklion, Crete,
for various meetings and ceremonies.

2. They applied for authorization to use the room as a place of worship but faced initial
opposition from local authorities.
 3. The Orthodox Parish Church notified the police about the unauthorized use of the room by
Jehovah's Witnesses.

4. The applicants received multiple letters from the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs
stating that a decision on their application had not yet been made due to incomplete
information.

5. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants for operating a place of worship
without authorization under Greek law.

Legal Issue: The legal issue revolves around whether the criminal prosecution and conviction of the
Jehovah's Witnesses for operating a place of worship without authorization violated their right to
freedom of religion as protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rule of Law:

1. Freedom of Religion (ECHR Article 9): Guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience,
and religion, including the freedom to manifest one's religion in worship and observance.

2. Prescribed by Law: Any interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of religion must
be prescribed by law.

3. Legitimate Aim: Interference with the right to freedom of religion must pursue a legitimate
aim, such as public safety, protection of public order, health, or morals, or the rights and
freedoms of others.

4. Necessary in a Democratic Society: Any interference with the right to freedom of religion must
be necessary in a democratic society to achieve the legitimate aim pursued. It must be
proportionate and not excessive in relation to the aim pursued.

Application of the Rule of Law:

1. Prescribed by Law: The criminal proceedings against the Jehovah's Witnesses were based on
Law no. 1363/1938, which required authorization for the construction and operation of places
of worship.

2. Legitimate Aim: The government argued that the requirement for authorization served to
protect public order and the rights and freedoms of others, particularly given the association
of the Orthodox Church with Greek national identity.

3. Necessary in a Democratic Society: The Court acknowledged the government's legitimate aim
of protecting public order. However, it found that the interference with the Jehovah's
Witnesses' freedom of religion was not necessary in a democratic society. The law and
administrative practice imposed excessive restrictions and allowed for arbitrary denial of
authorization, hindering the exercise of religious freedom. The prosecution and conviction of
the Jehovah's Witnesses were disproportionate to the aim pursued and violated their rights
under Article 9 of the ECHR.
In conclusion, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the prosecution and conviction of the
Jehovah's Witnesses for operating a place of worship without authorization violated their right to
freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.