ECtHR / Application no. 23459/03 / Judgement

Bayatyan v. Armenia
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
European Court of Human Rights
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
07/07/2011
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0707JUD002345903
  • ECtHR / Application no. 23459/03 / Judgement
    Key facts of the case:

    1) The case originated in an application (no. 23459/03) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Vahan Bayatyan (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2003.

    ...

    3) The applicant alleged, inter alia, that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

     

    Outcome of the case:

    For these reasons, the Court

    1. Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;
    2. Holds, by sixteen votes to one,
    (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Armenian drams at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
     
    (i)  EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
     
    (ii)  EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
     
    (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
    1. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    106) In Europe, mention should be made of the proclamation in 2000 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which came into force in 2009. While the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Charter reproduces Article 9 § 1 of the Convention almost literally, its second paragraph explicitly states that “[t]he right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right” (see paragraph 57 above). Such an explicit addition is no doubt deliberate (see, mutatis mutandis, Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 100, and Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, § 105) and reflects the unanimous recognition of the right to conscientious objection by the member States of the European Union, as well as the weight attached to that right in modern European society.

    107) Within the Council of Europe, both the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers have also on several occasions called on the member States which had not yet done so to recognise the right to conscientious objection (see paragraphs 51-55 above). Furthermore, recognition of the right to conscientious objection became a precondition for admission of new member States into the organisation (see, as an example, paragraph 50 above). In 2001 the Parliamentary Assembly, having reiterated its calls made previously, stated specifically that the right to conscientious objection was a fundamental aspect of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in the Convention (see paragraph 52 above). In 2010 the Committee of Ministers, relying on the developments in the UNHRC case-law and the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, also confirmed such interpretation of the notion of freedom of conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention and recommended that the member States ensure the right of conscripts to be granted conscientious objector status (see paragraph 55 above).