Source: http://nomokanon.de/urteile/eughmr970529.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:23:10+00:00

Document:
Mr Dimitrios Tsirlis and Mr Timotheos Kouloumpas, on 26 November 1991.
(art. 3, art. 5, art. 6, art. 9, art. 13, art. 14).
in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).
applicants' claims for just satisfaction on 31 October 1996.
21 January 1997.  The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
Mr  P. Bitsaxis, of the Athens Bar,                      Counsel.
Mrs Grigoriou and also replies to its questions.
6.    The applicants were born in 1964 and live in Thiva, Beotia.
Eastern Attica of his appointment.
ground that Jehovah's Witnesses were not a "known religion".
Jehovah's Witnesses did not permit him to do so?"
period he had spent in detention pending trial.
Military Appeal Court (Anatheoritiko Dikastirio).
the Military Appeal Court, a court composed of five military judges.
the applicant should not be provisionally released.
military service had been expressly upheld (see paragraph 44 below).
decision of 22 March 1990 quashed.
application for the applicant's provisional release.
ordered that the applicant should remain in custody.
the applicant that he was a minister of that religion.
of the Director for Recruitment's decision.
permit him to do so?"
judges considered that "the accused [was] not a religious minister".
because his detention was due to his own gross negligence."
from military service in accordance with section 6 of the 1988 Law.
treated like other religious ministers.
was innocent on the ground that he was a minister of a "known religion"
Supreme Administrative Court's decision on his administrative appeal.
in custody.  The defence requested the applicant's provisional release.
applicant should not be provisionally released.
not permit him to do so?"
by his superior to perform one of his duties is punished..."
perform military service as he was a minister of a "known religion".
commit the criminal offence for which they were detained ..."
gross negligence, he was responsible for his own detention."
later stage from the same court.
under Article 7 (art. 7) that their conviction had been arbitrary.
allegation of a violation of the Convention.
not to recognise the existence of a religious minority.
military tribunals (see paragraphs 11, 23, 31 and 40 above).
Supreme Administrative Court in the applicants' cases.
Court sees no reason to adopt a different view.
Series A no. 129, p. 21, para. 49).
Reports 1996-III, p. 753, para. 42).
detention, the military authorities blatantly ignored this case-law.
twelve months in detention respectively.
of the Greek Orthodox Church obtain exemption (see paragraph 43 above).
of the Convention (art. 5-1).
have an enforceable right to compensation."
The Commission agreed with the applicants.
para. 5 (art. 5-5) could arise.
of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, p. 21, para. 46).
worship, teaching, practice and observance.
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
national minority, property, birth or other status."
outcome of the administrative proceedings.
decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court.
reasons and without affording them an opportunity to address the court.
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
Article 3 (art. 3) has been established.
the amount of 14,700,000 drachmas (GRD) each.
jointly (see paragraph 3 above).
nature.  However, no compensation was granted by the domestic courts.
the Commission left the matter to the Court's discretion.
a global sum of GRD 2,000,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
7.    Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 May 1997.

References: art. 5
 art. 6
 art. 9
 art. 13
 art. 14
in fine