(Grand Chamber) The applicant was a practising Jehovah’s Witness and a conscientious objector. He said that his conviction for refusing to serve in the army had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That complaint had been rejected.
Held: (Gyulumyan dissenting) There had been a violation of the applicant’s article 9 rights. The respondent had already promised to implement the necessary reforms, and had given an interim undertaking which implied that it would not conduct such prosecutions.
‘The Court reiterates that, as enshrined in article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a ‘democratic society’ within the meaning of the Convention. This freedom is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it. That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion.’
Judges:
Jean-Paul Costa, P
Citations:
23459/03, [2011] ECHR 1095, (2012) 54 EHRR 15
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 9
Citing:
See Also – Bayatyan v Armenia ECHR 27-Oct-2009
The claimant was a Jehovah’s Witness and accordingly a pacifist. He complained of being obliged to undertake military service. No alternative service was offered. He was convicted, and his punishment increased on the prosecutor’s appeal.
Held: . .
See Also – Bayatyan v Armenia ECHR 10-May-2010
Referral to Grand Chamber . .
Cited by:
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Cited – Doogan and Another v NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board SCS 24-Apr-2013
(Extra Division, Inner House) The reclaimers, Roman Catholic midwives working on a labour ward as co-ordinators, sought to assert a right of conscientious objection under the 1967 Act. The respondents said that only those directly involved in the . .
Cited – Bull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Armed Forces
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470468