Kokkinakis, Pentecostal Church
The Larissis and Others against Greece in 1998 shows an evolution of the case law on proselytism. Facts: three officers of the Greek army, a member of the Pentecostal Church and are convicted by a court of proselytizing the army.
The Court takes the term "improper proselytism". Thus in paragraph 45 it is stated that this qualification is justified when the pressures are abusive. On the other hand, benefits or property that are offered to the caller depends on its adherence to religious grouping. The Court operates control measures taken by the national authorities, particularly regarding proportionality. Thus, in this case, unlike the case of Kokkinakis against Greece, the degree of freedom of the interlocutor is considered.
The Court distinguished "proselytism exercised with the soldiers and that charged to civilians." In the first case, Greece has not violated Article 9.1 of the Convention, the latter having abused their hierarchical position. This does not even measures which concerned the applicants who had sent civilians since no undue pressure or coercion are observed (§ 59) and any special protection of the speakers was required.
[...] Greek law focuses on the nature of the means employed. As for France considers the conditioning of the victim and the affront to human dignity. Greek law punishes the individual guilty of proselytizing. French law extends to corporate criminal liability for fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance or weakness. A critical control: A polemic argument: The Kokkinakis judgment is the first stop for which the ECHR ruling on the scope of freedom of religion. The distinction between "true evangelization" and "improper proselytism" is surprising. [...]
[...] " Also " . to a time when sects more or less accepted to obtain conversions and sometimes lead to worse it is regrettable that the judgment . Allow proselytizing activities on the sole condition that they are not 'abusive'. " Thus, the influence of the ECHR on Contracting States is considerable. Sweden amend its legislation in the early 1950s in relation to the freedom to change religion because until then it was forbidden to leave the state church if it were to become a member of a non-Christian religion. [...]
[...] Greek law The Larissis and Others against Greece in 1998 shows an evolution of the case law on proselytism. Facts: three officers of the Greek army, a member of the Pentecostal Church and are convicted by a court of proselytizing the army. The Court takes the term "improper proselytism". Thus in paragraph 45 it is stated that this qualification is justified when the pressures are abusive. On the other hand, benefits or property that are offered to the caller depends on its adherence to religious grouping. [...]
[...] The "protection of the rights and freedoms of others" justifies the repression of proselytism. But the mere fact of disseminating religious belief by home to processes he justifies this solution goes against Article 10 of the Convention? Nothing is less certain. First, the report on which the Convention was founded in 1956 and was only a draft. Not until the Joint Theological Commission that is open in 1970, the concept of "improper proselytism" term recovery in the Larissis stop) Furthermore, the Court does not rule on compliance with Greek legislation Convention prohibiting proselytism. [...]
[...] Suggested solutions Jean Paul Costa lists three reasons ensuring the multiplication of judgments on freedom of religion. On the one hand, immigration to Europe, where the multiplication of religion such as Islam, Buddhism, African religions multiply difficulties. Germany's Turkish community wants Islam benefits from state tax (Kirchensteuer). On the other hand, the proliferation of fundamentalism (Muslim, Christian, Jewish . ) poses new problems of manifestation of religion. It will answer the following questions: where does a cult? or starts a religion? [...]
using our reader.