European Commission of Human Rights

Grandrath v. Germany (2299/64)

Date published: 12 December 1966

Mr Grandrath, a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses, was a "total objector", seeking to be exempted both from military and from civilian service. He complained about his criminal conviction for refusing to perform substitute civilian service and alleged that he was discriminated against in comparision with Roman Catholic and Protestant ministers who were exempt from this service.

Case of Tomi Autio v. Finland (17086/90) - inadmissibility decision

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17086/90

by Tomi AUTIO

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 December 1991, the following members being present:

MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs.G. H. THUNE
SirBasil HALL
MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs.J. LIDDY
MM.L. LOUCAIDES
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

H. ; B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 18 July 1986, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
C.A. NØRGAARD
F. ERMACORA
G. TENEKIDES
S. TRECHSEL
B. KIERNAN
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Sir Basil HALL

Johansen v. Norway (Application No. 10600/83)

(...)

The applicant is a Norwegian citizen born in 1956 and resident at Ise in Norway. (...)

Being a pacifist, the applicant is opposed to military service, and he also objects to civilian service, since the purpose of such service is, in his opinion, to uphold respect for military service.

(...)

N. v. Sweden (10410/83) - inadmissibility decision

A pacifist, the applicant was convicted for refusing to perform compulsory military service. He did not ask for a possibility to perform substitute civilian service. Before the Commission, he alleged to be a victim of discrimination, since members of various religious groups were exempted from service while philosophical reasons such as being a pacifist did not constitute valid grounds for discharging him from his obligation to serve in the army.

C. v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 10358/83)

(...)

The applicant complains that the absence of any procedure whereby he may effectively invoke the right to manifest his pacifist beliefs by directing a proportion of the tax due from him for peaceful purposes represents a breach of Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention. (...)

X (Ross) v United Kingdom (Application No. 10295/82)

X. (Ross) v. United Kingdom

Application No. 10295/82

Facts:

The applicant, a pacifist, did not wish any portion of her income tax to be used for military purposes. She alleged that the fact that this was not allowed in the United Kingdom violated Art. 9.

The Law:

X. v. Germany (7705/76)

A Jehovah’s Witness and recognised as a conscientious objector by the competent authorities, the applicant refused to comply with a call-up for substitute civilian service. He was convicted of avoiding service and sentenced to four months in prison, but was granted a stay of execution to negotiate for a service agreement to do social work in a hospital or other institution, which would exempt him from civilian service. As he was unable to arrange for such an agreement, his sentence was enforced in December 1976.

X. v. Austria (5591/72)

The applicant complained about his conviction by the Austrian courts for having refused to serve his compulsory military service on grounds of his religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic.

Syndicate content