CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D69DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BC87A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s5749FA4E { width:31.55pt; display:inline-block } .s4D5F7D2B { width:138.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF TELIATNIKOV v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 51914/19)       JUDGMENT   Art 9 • Freedom of thought and conscience • Unjustified refusal to exempt conscientious objector, a Jehovah’s witness, from compulsory military service • Unavailability of an alternative genuine civilian service • Fair balance not struck between interests at stake     STRASBOURG 7 June 2022   FINAL   07/09/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Egidijus Kūris,   Branko Lubarda,   Gilberto Felici,   Saadet Yüksel,   Diana Sârcu, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   51914/19) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Stanislav Teliatnikov (“the applicant”), on 1   October 2019; the decision to give notice to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning his conscientious objection to military service under Article   9 of the Convention; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the European Centre for Law and Justice, which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;   Having deliberated in private on 10 May 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant complained, inter alia , that the Lithuanian legal regulation on conscientious objection had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, under Article   9 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1994. He currently lives in Konak, in the province of İzmir in Turkey. He was represented by Mr S.H. Brady Heath, a lawyer practising in London, the United Kingdom, and Ms H.   Haykaz, a lawyer practising in Thun, Switzerland. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   K.   Bubnytė-Širmenė. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicant is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious group whose beliefs include the conviction that service, even unarmed, within the military is to be opposed (see Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no.   23459/03, §   111, ECHR 2011). He was also appointed to the ecclesiastical position of ministerial servant (deacon) and had the status of a minister. 6.     The Government have specified that in Lithuania the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a registered religious community (see also paragraph   34 below, and Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” v. Lithuania , no.   48329/19, §§   58   and 59, 8   June 2021). To date there are nine traditional religious communities and four religious communities which have been granted State recognition in Lithuania; none of these include the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicant’s call-up for military service 7 .     At the beginning of June 2015 the applicant was called up for “initial mandatory military service” ( privalomoji pradinė karo tarnyba ) under Article   5 of the Law on Conscription (see paragraph   33 below). 8 .     On 15   June 2015 the applicant lodged a request with the Lithuanian army’s Darius and Girėnas Region 2nd Unit ( Dariaus ir Girėno apygardos 2-oji rinktinė – “the military authority”), pointing out that he was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and his Bible-trained conscience compelled him to refuse military service ( karinė tarnyba ) or any alternative service ( alternatyvi tarnyba ) which would be in any way controlled, supervised or directed by the military, or which in any other way supported military activity. He also pointed out that he was a religious ministerial servant (deacon), and referred to Article   3 §   1   (7) of the Law on Conscription (see paragraph   33 below), by virtue of which he could be exempted from mandatory military service and from alternative national defence service ( alternatyvi krašto apsaugos tarnyba ). Should his request be denied, he asked for the right to perform alternative civilian service ( alternatyvi civilinė tarnyba ) in harmony with the European standard, which would not be in any way controlled, supervised or directed by the military, and which would not require him to perform work that supported the military, or to otherwise act against his conscience. In support of his request, the applicant relied on Article   26 of the Constitution (see paragraph   32 below), Article   9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court’s case-law concerning conscientious objection (the applicant relied on Bayatyan , cited above), and the position of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2004 (see paragraph   44 below). 9.     At that time, Article   3   § 1 ( 7) of the Law on Conscription, read together with Article   5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations (see paragraph 34 below), exempted religious ministers from military service, but only if they were members of one of Lithuania’s nine “traditional” religions, which did not include the Jehovah’s Witnesses (see the ruling of the Constitutional Court which found the exemption unconstitutional, in paragraph 39 below). 10 .     On 7   September 2015 the military authority took a decision not to exempt the applicant from initial mandatory military service. 11 .     In an explanatory letter of 10 September 2015, the military authority informed the applicant that his request to be exempted from compulsory military service on the basis of Article   3 § 1 (7) of the Law on Conscription could not be granted, given that Article   5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations did not list Jehovah’s Witnesses among the traditional religious communities and associations that had been officially recognised by the State. The military authority also wrote that “the applicant’s request” for alternative national defence service ( alternatyvi krašto apsaugos tarnyba ), in the event that he was not exempted from [military] service, had been forwarded to the Commission for the Examination of Conscripts’ Requests to Perform Alternative National Defence Service (“the Commission”, see paragraph   38 below). The military authority lastly noted that the Law on Conscription provided not only for exemption from compulsory military service, but also for deferment ( atidėjimas ) of initial mandatory military service or alternative national defence service (Article 15 §   1 (14) and Article 20 §   1 of that Law). One of the grounds for its suspension was that a person would suffer a disproportionately large amount of damage should he perform initial mandatory military service. Should the applicant submit a reasoned request, it would be examined. The military authority did not respond to the applicant’s request to perform alternative civilian service. 12 .     By an order of 7   September 2015, the military authority suspended conscription in the Kaunas region. Conscripts who had expressed a wish to pursue military service could continue it either in the military, or, alternatively, in volunteer service (active reserve) ( savanorių pajėgose (aktyviame rezerve )). 13.     On 15   September 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal against the military authority’s decisions of 7 September 2015 and 10 September 2015 with the Ministry of National Defence. He pointed out that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, he could not perform either military service or any alternative service which was controlled by the military. He also argued that he had been discriminated against as a minister of a non-traditional religion, and referred to Articles   9 and 14 of the Convention. 14 .     On 23   October 2015 the military authority’s decisions were upheld by the Ministry of National Defence: although the applicant’s minister certificate showed that he was an active member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who had been appointed as a ministerial servant (deacon) and had the status of a minister, given the regulation based on Article   139 of the Constitution (see paragraph   32 below), Article   3 § 1 (7) of the Law on Conscription, and Article 5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations, there was no basis to exempt him from military service, as Jehovah’s Witnesses did not fall within the category of traditional religions in Lithuania. 15.     Furthermore, regarding the applicant’s request to be exempted from both initial mandatory military service and from alternative national defence service, the military authority also referred to Article   2 §   8 of the Law on Conscription, which underlined the constitutional duty of Lithuanian citizens to perform military or alternative national defence service. The administrative court proceedings regarding the military authority’s decisions The proceedings before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court The parties’ pleadings 16 .     The applicant started proceedings before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. In his revised claim ( patikslintas ieškinys ) of 4   November 2015, the applicant argued that, as a minister of the Jehovah’s Witnesses , he should be exempted from the obligation to perform both mandatory military service and alternative national defence service. He submitted that he had been discriminated against, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses were not a traditional religion in Lithuania, and referred to Articles 26 and 29 of the Constitution, Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, and the Court’s judgment in Löffelmann v. Austria (no.   42967/98, §§   47-55, 12   March 2009). He also asked the administrative court to refer the issue of possible discrimination, arising from Article   3 §   1 (7) of the Law on Conscription and Article   5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations, to the Constitutional Court. 17.     Responding to the claim, the military authority explained that the decisions taken in respect of the applicant had not created actual legal consequences for him. In September 2015 the military authority had already suspended conscription, having received a sufficient number of volunteers wishing to serve in the military. Besides, a minister of a non-traditional religion could ask for the obligation to perform initial mandatory military service or alternative national defence service to be deferred for the duration of the time period when he was performing his duties as a minister. 18 .     On 17 November 2015 the applicant asked the military authority not to examine his request for “alternative civilian service” “for the time being” ( tuo tarpu ), given that the court proceedings regarding his appeal against the military authority’s refusal to release him from “mandatory military service” were pending. (a)    The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s decision 19.     On 13 September 2016 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, on the basis of a request by the applicant, suspended the proceedings pending the Constitutional Court’s ruling in a similar case, which also involved a Jehovah’s Witness. The Constitutional Court delivered a ruling on 4   July 2017 (see paragraph   39 below). 20 .     Having resumed the examination of the applicant’s case, on 20   September 2017 the administrative court granted his appeal in part. Referring to the materials in the case file, the court pointed out that on 15   June 2015 the applicant had asked the military authority in writing to release him from mandatory military service and from alternative national defence service, and, should that request be denied, to allow him to perform alternative civilian service (see paragraph   8 above). 21 .     The court noted that it appeared from the military authority’s decision of 7   September 2015 that the latter “had not granted” ( netenkino ) the applicant’s request to be discharged from mandatory military service. Likewise, it appeared from the explanatory letter of 10 September 2015 that the military authority had informed the applicant that it would refer the question of alternative national defence service to the Commission. Accordingly, the military authority “had not addressed at all” ( apskritai nepasisakė ) the applicant’s request regarding the possibility of performing alternative civilian service which was unrelated to performing military actions or supporting them. From the military authority’s decisions in respect of the applicant, it was not clear whether he had a right to perform alternative civilian service, and whether such service had been possible at all. Those decisions had also lacked any reference to any legal regulations concerning the possibility of performing alternative civilian service. Even though, by the decision of 23 October 2015, the Ministry of National Defence had upheld the military authority’s decisions, the Ministry had not expressed its position about alternative civilian service either. The court therefore directed the military authority to re-examine the applicant’s request of 15   June 2015. The court also quashed the military authority’s decision of 7   September 2015 and the Ministry of National Defence’s decision of 23   October 2015. The proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court The parties’ pleadings 22.     The military authority and the Ministry of National Defence both lodged appeals. 23 .     In its appeal of 20 October 2017, the military authority argued, among other things, that the applicant lacked an interest in lodging a complaint against its decision, given that conscription had been suspended when a sufficient number of conscripts had showed an interest in serving. According to the information it possessed, the applicant had not been invited to perform initial mandatory military service the following year either. Furthermore, the applicant’s complaint was without merit, given the Constitutional Court’s findings relating to the obligation to perform military or alternative national defence service. 24 .     In its appeal on the same date, 20   October 2017, the Ministry of National Defence argued that the applicant’s request to be permitted to perform alternative civilian service had been unrelated to [the obligation] to perform military service, for the Law on Conscription “did not even provide for alternative civilian service” ( net nenumato alternatyvios civilinės tarnybos ; emphasis added by the Ministry of National Defence). That kind of service was not established by any legal instruments. Article   16 of the Law on Conscription only provided for the conditions for alternative national defence service ( alternatyvioji krašto apsaugos tarnyba ). The Ministry also referred to the Constitutional Court’s finding that under the Constitution a person’s belief cannot form the basis for release from the constitutional obligation to perform mandatory military service or alternative national defence service under Article   139 §   2 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 32 and 39 below). 25 .     On 9   November 2017 the applicant lodged a written objection to both appeals, requesting, inter alia , that the Supreme Administrative Court suspend his case and refer to the Constitutional Court a question on whether the State’s failure to include an exemption in the Law on Conscription from both mandatory military service and alternative national defence service for conscientious objectors breached the right to freedom of religion under Article   26 of the Constitution, and whether it was also contrary to Article   9 of the Convention. That question had not been answered by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 4   July 2017, for in that ruling that court had only examined whether ministers of traditional religions should be released from initial mandatory military service or alternative national defence service. Thus, the Constitutional Court had not examined the issue of whether persons, such as the applicant, who because of their conscientious objection were not able to perform mandatory military service or alternative national defence service, should be released from the obligation to perform that service. For the applicant, the Constitutional Court’s decision, on which the military authority and the Ministry of National Defence had relied in their appeals of 20 October 2017, to the effect that citizens of the Republic of Lithuania could “for no reason” ( dėl jokios priežasties ) be released from mandatory military service or alternative national defence service, was “obviously unjust” ( tai, žinoma, neteisinga ). The applicant noted that he had never agreed to alternative national defence service: on 17   November 2015 he had asked only that the examination of his request for alternative civilian service be postponed until the administrative court had examined his request for discharge “from both mandatory military service and from alternative national defence service” (see paragraph   18 above). As pointed out by the military authority, alternative civilian service had not even been established by law in Lithuania. 26 .     The applicant further observed that the military authority’s decisions had made no mention of the fact that the applicant’s conscience did not allow him to perform mandatory military service or alternative national defence service. Those decisions were silent on his rights under Article 26 of the Constitution, Article 9 of the Convention, and Article 18 of the ICCPR. The military authority had “erroneously limited itself” ( neteisingai apsiribojo ) in its decisions by only referring to Article   3 § 1 (7) of the Law on Conscription, with regard to ministers of “traditional religions”, inasmuch as it was not applicable to the applicant. Conversely, the military authority had not even considered the applicant’s request to be released from military service because of his “religious beliefs” ( dėl religinių įsitikinimų ) under the above-mentioned provisions of the Constitution, the Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a consequence, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court had quashed those decisions and returned the question to be decided afresh. 27 .     The applicant asked that the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s decision of 20 September 2017 be upheld, and the appeals of the military authority and the Ministry of National Defence be dismissed. The Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling 28 .     By a final and unappealable ruling of 10   April 2019, the Supreme Administrative Court granted the appeals by the military authority and the Ministry of National Defence and quashed the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s decision of 30 September 2017. 29 .     Referring to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4   July 2017, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the constitutional duty of a citizen to perform mandatory military service or alternative national defence service applied both to ministers of churches and religious organisations that were considered traditional in Lithuania , and also to ministers of non-traditional religious communities and associations. There was thus a legal basis for holding that the military authority’s decision not to release the applicant from mandatory military service, by directly applying the Constitution as it had been interpreted by the Constitutional Court, despite the fact that Article   3 §   1 (7) of the Law on Conscription was in breach of the Constitution, “in essence was lawful” ( iš esmės teisėtas ). 30 .     Accordingly, there were no grounds to exempt the applicant from his constitutional duty to perform mandatory military or alternative national defence service. Furthermore, it had been explained to the applicant that the request for alternative national defence service, if he was not released from military service, would be examined by the Commission. That decision by the military authority corresponded to the requirements stemming from the Constitution, that arose from a citizen’s constitutional duty to perform military or alternative national defence service. It had been explained to the applicant that he had the possibility of deferring the performance of military duty ( atidėti karo prievolės atlikimą ), on the basis of Article   15 §   1 (14) or Article   20 §   1 of the Law on Conscription (see paragraph   33 below). In order to defer it was necessary to firstly submit a request ( pareikštine tvarka ) for the performance of military duty, and, as a precondition, to be declared fit to perform military duty and then alternative national defence service; only then could it be considered whether there was a basis for postponement of the military obligation. 31 .     Lastly, in the light of the Constitutional Court’s findings (see paragraph 39 below), there was no basis for finding that the particular characteristics of the applicant, based on his social status, could cast doubt on whether the clarification in the provisions of the Constitution regarding the obligation to perform military service included persons such as the applicant. This was undoubtedly directly applicable to the applicant, so there was no legal basis to turn to the Constitutional Court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE relevant domestic law and practice The Constitution and legislation 32 .     The Constitution reads: Article 26 “Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion shall not be restricted. Everyone shall have the right to freely choose any religion or belief and, ... to profess his religion ... ... The freedom to profess and spread religion or belief may not be limited otherwise than by law and only when this is necessary to guarantee the security of society, public order, the health or morals of people, or other basic rights or freedoms of the person ...” Article 27 “Convictions, practised religion, or belief may not serve as a justification for ... failure to observe laws.” Article 29 “All persons shall be equal before the law ... Human rights may not be restricted; no one may be granted any privileges on the grounds of ... social status, belief, convictions, or views.” Article 43 “The State shall recognise the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania; other churches and religious organisations shall be recognised provided that they have support in society, and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals...” Article 139 “The defence of the State of Lithuania against a foreign armed attack shall be the right and duty of each citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. The citizens of the Republic of Lithuania must perform military or alternative national defence service according to the procedure established by law ...” 33 .     The Law on Conscription ( Karo prievolės įstatymas ), in so far as relevant, reads as follows: Article 2. Main Definitions in this Law “2. Alternative national defence service – the service of conscripts who owing to religious or pacifist beliefs cannot perform armed service, which is an alternative to mandatory military service. 8. Conscription ( karo prievolė ) – the constitutional duty of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania to perform military or alternative national defence service. 9. Conscript – a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania of full age who is subject to conscription. 18. Mandatory military service – initial mandatory military service performed by a conscript, service in the reserve or service during mobilisation. 19. Initial mandatory military service – the preparation of conscripts to defend the State with a weapon ...” Article 3. Exemption from Mandatory Military Service “1. The following citizens shall be exempted from mandatory military service: ... (3) persons, who by the decision of the Military Medical Examination Commission ... have been declared unfit for mandatory military service owing to their health status; ... (7) ministers of religious communities and associations considered traditional in Lithuania and recognised by the State.” [This provision was declared unconstitutional on 4 July 2017; see paragraph   39 below] Article 5. Conditions of Regular Initial Mandatory Military Service “1. Regular initial mandatory military service ( nuolatinė privalomoji pradinė karo tarnyba ) shall be performed in military units in accordance with the programmes approved by the commander-in-chief of the army. 2. Conscripts shall be called up for regular initial mandatory military service from the reserve of untrained military personnel from 19 to 26 years of age [inclusive] ... 3. The duration of regular initial mandatory military service shall be nine months ...” Article 6. Conscription Order for Initial Mandatory Military Service “4. Conscription shall be carried out until the number of conscripts who are to perform initial mandatory military service is reached... Conscripts who are willing to perform initial mandatory military service shall be summonsed first, then in succession conscripts included in the list for the current year who have not expressed willingness to perform it. ... 6. Conscripts shall be assigned to perform initial mandatory military service in compliance with the order established by law, after their health has been examined and it has been established that they are fit to perform initial mandatory military service.” Article 15. Deferment of Initial Mandatory Military Service on an Individual Basis “1. Initial mandatory military service shall be deferred in respect of the following conscripts: ... (13 1 ) [provision in force as of 1   January 2018] [conscripts] who are members of Lithuanian religious communities or associations, which have the rights of a legal entity, who in compliance with the order set forth by canons, regulations or other provisions of those communities or associations have been elected or designated to perform pastoral work in those communities or associations; (14) in compliance with the order of the Minister of Defence, those for whom the performance of initial mandatory military service would cause disproportionately significant damage to personal or social interests, which could be avoided if the conscript performed initial mandatory military service at another time.” Article 16. Conditions for Performing Alternative National Defence Service “1. Alternative national defence service shall be performed instead of initial mandatory military service or basic military training and service during mobilisation. 2. The duration of alternative national defence service, performed instead of initial mandatory military service, shall be 10 months ... 3. Alternative national defence service, which is performed instead of mandatory military service during mobilisation, shall last until demobilisation is announced. 4. Conscripts shall perform alternative national defence service at State or municipal institutions, as labour useful to the community. Conscripts shall be assigned to serve in positions which do not require the use of weapons, special measures or coercion. 5. Conscripts who perform alternative national defence service shall have applied to them the same supply conditions as conscripts undertaking initial mandatory military service ... (except for living quarters and clothing) ... 6. The order of the performance of alternative national defence service at State and municipal institutions shall be set forth by the Government or the authorised institution.” Article 17. Assignment to Perform Alternative National Defence Service Instead of Initial Mandatory Military Service ... “1. Conscripts who wish to perform alternative national defence service until the call- up for initial mandatory military service ... may at any time submit a request to a national defence system institution which administers conscription to perform alternative national defence service. The grounds for the request must be religious or pacifist beliefs, which do not allow for the performance of service with a weapon. 2. The requests of conscripts as regards the performance of alternative national defence service shall be examined by a Special Commission formed of representatives of associations, traditional religious communities and associations, and universities. The latter commission shall submit recommendations concerning whether there are grounds for conscripts’ requests... Taking into account the recommendations of the Special Commission, the national defence system institution which administers conscription shall adopt a decision to find the request to perform alternative national defence service to be either well founded or not well founded. 3. A conscript shall be assigned to perform alternative national defence service if he is selected for initial mandatory military service ..., if it is established that he is fit to perform initial mandatory military service ... having examined his health ... and if his request to perform this service is found to be well founded by the Commission indicated in paragraph 2 of this Article.” Article 20. Deferment of Alternative National Defence Service “1. Alternative national defence service, performed instead of initial mandatory military service or basic military training, shall be deferred with regard to those conscripts whose requests to perform alternative national defence service are found to be well founded by the commission indicated in Article 17 § 2 of this Law.” Article 26. Conditions of Military Service After Mobilisation is Announced “1. When general mobilisation is announced, all reserve military conscripts of Lithuania are called to perform military service ... 2. When mobilisation is announced, [military] [s]ervice is performed in military units   ...” 34 .     The Law on Religious Communities and Associations ( Religinių bendruomenių ir bendrijų įstatymas ) specifies that the State recognises nine traditional religious communities and associations existing in Lithuania, which form part of Lithuania’s historical, spiritual and social heritage: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran, Evangelical Reformed, Russian Orthodox, Old Believer, Judaist, Sunni Muslim, and Karaite (Article   5). There are also other recognised (non-traditional) religious associations (see Romuva , cited above, §   59). 35 .     The Code of Administrative Law Violations ( Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodeksas ) provides that failure to discharge conscription obligations, as set out by the Law on Conscription, is punishable by a fine of 30 to 60 euros (EUR). Such a violation, if committed repeatedly, is punishable by a fine of EUR 60 to 140 (Article 560). 36.     The Criminal Code provides: Article 314. Evasion of Conscription Into Mandatory Military Service “1. A military conscript who evades conscription into mandatory military service by impairing his health, simulating an illness or health disorder, forging documents or using other means of deception shall be punished by arrest or by a custodial sentence for a term of up to three years. 2. A military conscript who evades conscription into mandatory military service, in the absence of the characteristics indicated in paragraph   1 of this Article, shall be considered to have committed a misdemeanour and shall be punished by a fine or by arrest.” The Government Resolutions on alternative national defence service 37 .     On 23   February 2000 the Government passed Resolution no.   206 establishing the Regulations for Performing Alternative National Defence Service in State and Municipal Institutions ( Alternatyviosios krašto apsaugos tarnybos atlikimo valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijose ir įstaigose tvarkos aprašas ). Those Regulations provide that alternative national defence service is exercised by the performing of labour which is useful to the community (paragraph 2). Conscripts are to be assigned to alternative service by the national defence system institution which administers conscription, according to the applications submitted by other State or municipal institutions in which the number of conscripts in question and the proposed location and functions of the service are to be indicated (paragraph 8). Should no civilian work assignment be available, the conscript will be assigned to perform an alternative service in the national defence institutions (paragraphs   7 and 9). A conscript who has been assigned to perform alternative national defence service at a State or municipal institution must show up at the military institution which manages that service; its specialist must accompany the conscript to his place of work (paragraph   12). The head of the institution where the conscript performs his work must notify the military in writing about the conscript’s tasks and duties. The conscript cannot be dismissed without the military’s approval (paragraphs 14 and 22). 38 .     On 23   February 2000 the Government passed Resolution no.   207 establishing the Regulations on the Commission for the Examination of Conscripts’ Requests to Perform Alternative National Defence Service ( Karo prievolininkų prašymų atlikti alternatyviąją krašto apsaugos tarnybą nagrinėjimo komisijos sudarymo ir jos nuostatai ). In so far as relevant, the Regulations read: I. General Provisions “3. The Special Commission shall act on a voluntary basis ( veikia visuomeniniais pagrindais ). The Ministry of National Defence shall provide the Special Commission with the necessary means and premises. 3 1 . The Special Commission, which shall consist of 8 members, shall be formed of the appointed representatives of associations, traditional religious communities, religious associations and universities ...” II. Functions, Rights and Duties of the Special Commission “4. The Special Commission shall examine the requests of conscripts to be allowed to perform alternative national defence service, and shall decide whether conscripts are unable to perform service using weapons owing to their religious or pacifist beliefs. 5. The Special Commission has the right: (1) To receive information from State institutions, ... organisations, and individuals, which is necessary for the examination of the requests of conscripts. (2) To invite conscripts who apply as regards the performance of alternative national defence service to sessions. 6. The Special Commission must examine the request of a conscript to be allowed to perform alternative national defence service, hear him, and provide the institution which administers conscription with recommendations concerning whether the request is well founded.” The case-law of the Constitutional Court 39 .     In a ruling of 4   July 2017 regarding the compatibility of certain provisions of the Law on Conscription with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court declared Article   3 § 1 (7) of the Law on Conscription (the wording of 23 June 2011), to be in conflict with Articles   29 and 139 §   2 of the Constitution. The proceedings concerned the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s request to investigate whether aforementioned provision of the Law on Conscription, insofar as priests of only the religious communities and associations considered traditional in Lithuania and recognised by the State were exempted from mandatory military service, was in conflict with Article   29 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court held: “In accordance with Article   139 § 2 of the Constitution, a law may establish only such conditions for exemption from the constitutional duty of citizens to perform military service or alternative national defence service as are related to objective circumstances on account of which the citizens cannot perform this duty ... [B]eing a minister of a religious community or association (that is, having a certain social status relating to the professed religion) is not related to any such circumstances on account of which citizens would be objectively unable to perform the duty in question and which could constitutionally justify their exemption from this duty, especially in view of the fact that, under the Constitution, persons who are unable to perform military service owing to their religious or other convictions have the right to perform alternative national defence service instead of military service, as well as the fact that the fulfilment of the constitutional duty to perform military or alternative national defence service may be deferred for important reasons. Consequently, under Article   139 § 2 of the Constitution, having the status of a minister of a church or religious organisation does not provide a basis for exempting a person from his constitutional duty as a citizen to perform military or alternative national defence service. ... [T]he legal regulation established in ... [Article   3 §1 (7)] of the Law on Conscription authorising exemption from mandatory military service, that is from the constitutional duty of citizens to perform military or alternative national defence service, in the absence of any constitutionally justifiable basis, violated the requirement, stemming from Article 139 §   2 of the Constitution, that a law may establish only such conditions for exempting citizens from their constitutional duty to perform military or alternative national defence service that are related to objective circumstances owing to which citizens are unable to perform this duty... [S]uch a law led to a constitutionally unjustifiable difference between ministers of the religious communities and associations considered traditional in Lithuania and other citizens; therefore, that law also violated the principle of the equality of the rights of persons, which is consolidated in Article   29 of the Constitution.” In its summary of the ruling, the Constitutional Court also stated: “By this ruling ... ... [T]he Constitutional Court pointed out that ... convictions, practised religion, or belief may not serve as a justification for ... failure to observe laws ... and, while implementing his or her rights and exercising his or her freedoms, everyone must observe the Constitution and laws and must not restrict the rights and freedoms of other people ... Among other things, this means that, on the grounds of his or her convictions, practised religion, or belief, no one may refuse to fulfil constitutionally established duties, inter alia , the duty of a citizen to perform military or alternative national defence service, or demand the exemption from these duties. ... The Constitutional Court also noted that, under Article   139 § 2 of the Constitution, the legislature may provide for the possibility of deferring the fulfilment of the constitutional duty of citizens to perform military or alternative national defence service in cases where the citizen is temporarily unable to perform this service owing to the important reasons specified in the law or the important interests of the person, family, or society which might be injured if such service were not deferred at a given time. Once the reasons for deferring service are no longer applicable, the citizen must perform military or alternative national defence service.” Materials and case-law of the administrative courts relied on by the parties 40 .     On 23 May 2019, in reply to a certain K.M.’s request to undertake alternative national defence service that would not be controlled by the military structures, the director of the Military Conscription and Recruitment Service of the Lithuanian Armed Forces responded: “It is noteworthy that the alternative national defence service does not provide for the possibility of performing civilian service which is entirely independent of the control and supervision of the national defence structures. Taking into account the concluding observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee of 26 July 2018 on the fourth periodic report of Lithuania, the summoning procedures for the performance of permanent compulsory military service are suspended until an entirely civilian service is available or other decisions are taken. As the situation changes, you will be informed regarding the submission of data and documents and about the health check, according to the procedure prescribed by the legal acts governing initial compulsory military service, namely through the public list of military conscripts (www.sauktiniai.karys.lt), and by contacting you at the contact details provided.” 41 .     In another case, a plaintiff – a minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses – asked the Military Conscription and Recruitment Service of the Lithuanian Armed Forces (“the Service”) to be released from the obligation to perform mandatory military service and alternative national defence service, and to be permitted to perform civilian service. Instead, the Service took the decision not to defer initial mandatory military service in respect of the applicant. For his part, on appeal by that plaintiff, the Minister of Defence quashed the Service decision and ordered it to re-examine the plaintiff’s request. That being so, the Minister of Defence pointed out that the Law on Conscription did not provide for a possibility to release from military service only on the ground that a person belonged to a religious community. The plaintiff then appealed against the Minister’s decision, arguing that the Minister had erroneously held that the plaintiff’s religious convictions, as a Jehovah’s Witness, would not be violated if he were to perform alternative national defence service. 42 .     By a decision of 23   July 2018, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court rejected the plaintiff’s complaints. The court considered that the applicant had not proven that the alternative national defence system, as regulated by Regulations established by Government Resolution no.   206, would be frightening or punitive ( yra bauginamo ar baudžiamojo pobūdžio ), so as to be contrary to the plaintiff’s religious beliefs. The court also held that the Minister of Defence’s decision had been lawful and well founded. Under the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, a citizen’s conscience had to be orientated to the provisions of the Constitution, which were the yardstick of proper behaviour as a citizen. There could be no conflict between a person’s conscience and his or her religious beli