CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15816/20 Erikas RUTKAUSKAS against Lithuania lodged on 25 March 2020 communicated on 14 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Jehovah’s Witness, he is also a religious minister. Having been called on to perform military service in Lithuania, he refused on religious and conscientious grounds. His request to perform civilian service instead was not answered by the military authorities. The applicant challenged their decisions in court, but by a final ruling of 16   October 2019 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld those decisions. Under Article   9 of the Convention the applicant complains that despite his genuinely held religious beliefs and his conscience, he was denied the right to refuse military service. Even though he had never denied his civic obligations, no alternative civilian service had been provided for by Lithuanian law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of conscience or religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention (see for general principles, Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§   111-128, ECHR 2011; Adyan and Others v. Armenia , no. 75604/11, §   60, 12   October 2017, and Mushfig Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos.   14604/08 and   3 others, §   78, 17   October 2019)?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2 (see Dyagilev v. Russia , no.   49972/16, §§   60 and 61, 10   March 2020, and, most recently, Teliatnikov v. Lithuania , no. 51914/19, §§   93-102, 7   June 2022)?   In particular, has the State organised and implemented a system of alternative service in a way to offer – in law and in practice – an alternative to military service of a genuinely civilian nature and one which is not deterrent or punitive in character (see Adyan , cited above, §   67, and Teliatnikov , cited above, §§   103-109)?