CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 février 2007

.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. 94 February 2007 Erdel v. Germany (dec.) - 30067/04 Decision 13.2.2007 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Call-up of reserve officerrevoked owing to membership of a political party suspected of disloyalty to the constitutional order: inadmissible   The applicant is a member of a political party ( Die Republikaner ) which is considered as populist and right-wing and has therefore been under scrutiny by the German offices for the protection of the constitution. His call-up in the German army as a lieutenant on the reserve list was revoked on account of his membership in the above party. He unsuccessfully appealed against this decision before the administrative courts and the Federal Constitutional Court. Inadmissible : The assumed interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been lawful and had pursued the legitimate aims of preserving the army’s political neutrality and of preventing any future criminal offences with a right-wing extremist background to be committed from within the army which is supposed to be a guarantor of the constitution and democracy. The latter notion has a special importance in Germany because of the country’s experience during the Third Reich, and the Federal Republic’s constitution was based on the principle of a “democracy capable of defending itself”. Given the fact that several criminal offences with a right-wing extremist background had been committed by members of the German army, this having attracted widespread publicity and having considerably damaged the army’s reputation, the courts did not overstep their margin of appreciation when presuming possible disloyalty of the applicant’s party on the basis of a report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Moreover, the applicant bore a special responsibility as he held a senior post within the army. The courts also carefully examined why a prior ban on the party in question by the Federal Constitutional Court had not been a prerequisite to take the applicant’s membership into account when revoking his call-up. In contrast with the Vogt v . Germany case, the applicant, being a practising lawyer and not a professional soldier, was therefore not threatened with losing his livelihood by the impugned measure. Moreover, the revocation had not resulted in his loss of rank as a reserve officer, but only in his ineligibility for future military trainings. In these circumstances, the revocation had not amounted to a disproportionate restriction of his right to freedom of expression: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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