CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   944 10.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Koppi v. Austria (application no. 33001/03)   REFUSAL OF PREACHER’S REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM CIVILIAN SERVICE NOT DISCRIMINATORY   unanimously   No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Matthias Stefan Koppi, is an Austrian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Rankweil (Austria). He is a member and student of the “Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in Österreich”, a registered religious community. He has been working as a municipal preacher ( Prediger ) for the community since 2001.   Recognised in November 2000 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as a conscientious objector and, as such, exempt from military service, Mr Koppi was still liable to perform civilian service. He subsequently requested the Ministry to be exempted from civilian service claiming that he held a comparable clerical position to members of recognised religious societies who, because they performed specific services relating to worship or religious instruction, were exempt. The Ministry dismissed his request on the ground that, under section 13a of the Civilian Service Act, exemption only applied to members of recognised religious societies and not registered religious communities.   Mr Koppi’s complaints to the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court were also ultimately dismissed.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles   4 (prohibition of forced labour), 9 and   14, Mr Koppi complained about not being exempt from the obligation to perform civil service duties, while members of recognised religious societies holding religious functions comparable to his own were.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 September 2003 and declared partly admissible on 5 January 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Summary of the judgment   Decision of the Court   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9   Firstly, the criterion of belonging to a recognised religious society, on which the Austrian authorities had relied in refusing the applicant’s request for exemption from civilian service was not, as such, discriminatory. A difference in treatment between religious groups resulting from their being granted a specific status in law – to which substantial privileges were attached – was compatible with the requirements of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 9 as long as the State had set up a framework for conferring legal personality on those groups and as long as each group had had a fair opportunity to apply for the specific status, using established criteria in a non-discriminatory manner.   However, there was no indication that Mr Koppi’s religious community had applied for recognition as a religious society or that such a request had been refused, let alone refused on grounds incompatible with the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention.   The Court therefore considered that Mr Koppi, as a member of a registered religious community applying for exemption from civilian service under section 13a (1) of the Civilian Service Act, had not been in a relevantly similar or analogous situation to a member of a recognised religious society. There had therefore been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9.   Others   Given the above finding, there was no need to examine separately the issue under Article 9 alone or from the point of view of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 4.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.