Search
document

Document text Analytics

GRANDRATH AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 2299/64 • ECHR ID: 001-49206

Document date: June 29, 1967

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

GRANDRATH AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 2299/64 • ECHR ID: 001-49206

Document date: June 29, 1967

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

called "the Convention");

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the

Convention, relating to the application lodged by Albert Grandrath, a

German national, against the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany (No. 2299/64);

Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of

Ministers on 11 January 1967, and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention

has lapsed without the case having been brought before the Court in

pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas in his application Albert Grandrath submits that, being a

member and minister of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, he objects for

reasons of conscience and religion not only to performing military

service, but also to performing any kind of substitute service;

whereas he consequently alleges a violation of Article 9 (art. 9) of

the Convention on the ground that, after having been recognised as a

conscientious objector, he was required by the German authorities to

carry out substitute service and, on his refusal to do so, was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment;

Whereas the Commission declared his application admissible on

23rd April 1965, and, during its subsequent examination of the case,

considered:

(a) whether there had been a violation of Article 9 (art. 9) of the

Convention in that the applicant has not been exempted from substitute

civilian service on the ground of his objections which were based on

his conscience and religion; in particular, whether the civilian

service concerned would have restricted his right to manifest his

religion and whether the mere fact of the requirement that, in spite

of his objections, he should perform such service, violated Article 9

(art. 9);

(b) whether there had been a violation of Article 14 of the

Convention - in conjunction with Article 4 (art. 14+4) or Article 9

(art. 14+9) - in that, by being refused exemption from service, he had

been subject to discrimination, as compared with Roman Catholic and

Protestant ministers; in particular as regards the consideration of

Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 (art. 14+4), whether the

criteria adopted in the German Act on Compulsory Military Service and

applied in the Act on Substitute Civilian Service were discriminatory

and whether the application of that German law was discriminatory;

further, as regards the consideration of Article 14 in conjunction

with Article 9 (art. 14+9), whether the civilian service concerned

involved any discriminatory treatment of the Applicant in the

enjoyment of his right to the freedom of conscience and religion;

Whereas the Commission in its report unanimously expressed the

following opinions:

(i) that there was no violation of Article 9 (art. 9) of the

Convention considered separately;

(ii) that there was no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with

Article 4 (art. 14+4) of the Convention;

(iii) that there was no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with

Article 9 (art. 14+9) of the Convention;

Noting that different reasons were given by members of the

Commission for reaching some of these conclusions, but that the

conclusions themselves were unanimous;

Considering that the report of the Commission raises inter alia (in

paragraph 38) the question of interpretation of Article 14 (art. 14)

of the Convention - a question which is currently under examination by

the European Court of Human Rights in another case;

Considering that in any event - and without defining the exact scope

of Article 14 (art. 14) - the examination of the case does not

disclose a violation of Article 14 (art. 14) or of any other article

of the Convention;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention,

Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant