CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 28 May 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18382/15 Murat KANATLI against Turkey lodged on 6 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the applicant, who is a conscientious objector and an activist, to attend reservist service when called to attend training for military mobilisation of the Turkish Army in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) in 2009. On 25   February 2014 he was convicted by the Security Forces Court for failing to serve in the reservist service and sentenced to a fine and ten days’ imprisonment in default of payment. His appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Security Forces Appeal Court on 9 October 2014. In the meantime the applicant served his prison sentence between 25   February 2014 and 6 March 2014. The applicant relies on Articles 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of conscience, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 § 2?   3.     Does the failure of the respondent State to provide for the possibility of alternative civil service and the right to conscientious objection amount to a violation of Article 9?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 9, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   5.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?