CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 29 juin 1967

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers,   Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter called "the Convention");   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, relating to the application lodged by Albert Grandrath, a German national, against the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 2299/64);   Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 1967, and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has lapsed without the case having been brought before the Court in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas in his application Albert Grandrath submits that, being a member and minister of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, he objects for reasons of conscience and religion not only to performing military service, but also to performing any kind of substitute service; whereas he consequently alleges a violation of Article 9 (art. 9) of the Convention on the ground that, after having been recognised as a conscientious objector, he was required by the German authorities to carry out substitute service and, on his refusal to do so, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment;   Whereas the Commission declared his application admissible on 23rd April 1965, and, during its subsequent examination of the case, considered:   (a)    whether there had been a violation of Article 9 (art. 9) of the Convention in that the applicant has not been exempted from substitute civilian service on the ground of his objections which were based on his conscience and religion; in particular, whether the civilian service concerned would have restricted his right to manifest his religion and whether the mere fact of the requirement that, in spite of his objections, he should perform such service, violated Article 9 (art. 9);   (b)    whether there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention - in conjunction with Article 4 (art. 14+4) or Article 9 (art. 14+9) - in that, by being refused exemption from service, he had been subject to discrimination, as compared with Roman Catholic and Protestant ministers; in particular as regards the consideration of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 (art. 14+4), whether the criteria adopted in the German Act on Compulsory Military Service and applied in the Act on Substitute Civilian Service were discriminatory and whether the application of that German law was discriminatory; further, as regards the consideration of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 (art. 14+9), whether the civilian service concerned involved any discriminatory treatment of the Applicant in the enjoyment of his right to the freedom of conscience and religion;   Whereas the Commission in its report unanimously expressed the following opinions:   (i)   that there was no violation of Article 9 (art. 9) of the Convention considered separately;   (ii)   that there was no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 (art. 14+4) of the Convention;   (iii) that there was no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 (art. 14+9) of the Convention;   Noting that different reasons were given by members of the Commission for reaching some of these conclusions, but that the conclusions themselves were unanimous;   Considering that the report of the Commission raises inter alia (in paragraph 38) the question of interpretation of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention - a question which is currently under examination by the European Court of Human Rights in another case;   Considering that in any event - and without defining the exact scope of Article 14 (art. 14) - the examination of the case does not disclose a violation of Article 14 (art. 14) or of any other article of the Convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention,   Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.