CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 65 June 2004 Ülke v. Turkey (dec.) - 39437/98 Decision 1.6.2004 [Section II] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of conscience Repeated convictions of conscientious objector for persistently refusing to wear uniform and to carry out orders during compulsory military service: admissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Continuing situation The applicant was a conscientious objector and active member of an anti-militarist association. In August 1995 he was called up for military service. From September 1995 he was repeatedly convicted of having set other persons against the institution of military service, of having refused to wear uniform or of having deserted; as a result, he was sentenced to imprisonment on several occasions. Each time he was released, he was sent back to his unit and again convicted on account of his persistent refusal to wear uniform. Under the domestic legislation, all male citizens are obliged to follow at least a period of basic training, failing which they are liable to imprisonment. No other form of service is available to conscientious objectors. Admissible under Article 9, the question of this Article’s applicability being joined to the merits. The applicant complained of the successive sentences imposed by the national courts each time he stated that he was a conscientious objector and refused to wear military uniform. This series of prosecutions and convictions amounted to an “ongoing state of affairs” against which the applicant had had no remedy in domestic law. The situation had continued to exist on the date on which the application was lodged. The Government’s objection that the six-month time-limit had not been observed was therefore dismissed.   © 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