Article 9 of the ECHR reads:
“1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 9 does not explicitly mention the right to conscientious objection, whether in the military or civilian sphere. Nevertheless, the Court has ruled that the safeguards of Article 9 apply, in principle, to opposition to military service, when it is motivated by a serious, insuperable conflict between compulsory service in the army and an individual’s conscience or his or her sincere and deeply-held religious or other convictions. The answer to the question whether and to what extent objection to service in the military falls within the ambit of Article 9 will vary according to the specific circumstances of each case (see more in 1, 2, 3).
On 15-9-2016 the decision in Papavasilakis v Greece (Case No. 66899/14) was issued.
The applicant complained before the ECtHR that the rejection of his application to perform an alternative to military service due to his status as a conscientious objector was contrary to Article 9 of the ECHR. The Court ruled that the competent authorities failed, in the circumstances of the case, to comply with their positive obligation under Article 9 of the Convention to ensure that interviews of conscientious objectors by the special committee are conducted in conditions guaranteeing procedural efficiency and the equal representation required by section 62 of Law no. 3421/2005, and therefore that there had been a violation of that Article.
From Article 9 of the ECHR (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), it follows that the state has a positive obligation to provide for and ensure the functioning of an effective mechanism to examine applications for conscientious objector status. In order for this mechanism to be considered effective, the bodies responsible for examining the cases under consideration must gurantee impartial and independent judgement.
However, in Papavasilakis v. Greece, the ECtHR found that there was a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR, as the Greek authorities failed to comply with these obligations.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
