CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110 July 2008 Lahr v. Germany - 16912/05 Decision 1.7.2008 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Early termination of a conscript’s military service on the ground of his membership of an extremist party: inadmissible   In 1998, when he commenced his compulsory military service, the applicant was a local chairperson of the National Democratic Party of Germany, which is considered populist and right-wing extremist and has therefore been under scrutiny by the German office for the protection of the constitution. Some months later, his military service was prematurely terminated on account of his membership of and functions in the party. He unsuccessfully appealed against this decision to the administrative courts and the Federal Constitutional Court. Inadmissible : The assumed interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was lawful and had pursued the legitimate aims of preserving the army’s political neutrality, order and readiness to defend the free democratic constitutional system. As regards the necessity for the interference, a Contracting State did not overstep its margin of appreciation when deciding whether or not the further presence of a conscript within the army would pose a serious danger to military order. Even though no criticism had been levelled at the way the applicant actually performed his duties, the domestic courts had established comprehensively that his holding of functions in the party at issue during his military service and his failure to dissociate himself from the unconstitutional aims of that party posed a serious danger to the army’s integrity and loyalty to the Constitution. Moreover, the early termination of the applicant’s military service had had no effect on his livelihood (in contrast to the Vogtv . Germany case). The measure had therefore not amounted to a disproportionate and unjustified restriction of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression: manifestly ill-founded . See also Erdel v. Germany (dec.), no. 30067/04, 13 February 2007, Information Note no. 94.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes