CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. July 1997 Kalaç v. Turkey - 20704/92 Judgment 1.7.1997 Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Compulsory retirement of a judge advocate on account of his unlawful fundamentalist opinions: no violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] A.   Government's preliminary objection Objection that Court lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae not submitted to Court in writing - no decision called for (Rule 48 § 1 of Rules of Court A). Objection on ground of failure to exhaust domestic remedies - resubmitted in memorial to Court - decision in issue not subject to judicial review. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint Article 9 listed various forms which manifestation of one's religion or belief might take, namely worship, teaching, practice and observance - nevertheless, it did not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief - moreover, an individual might need to take his specific situation into account. System of military discipline by its very nature implied possibility of placing on certain of rights and freedoms of members of armed forces limitations incapable of being imposed on civilians. In present case applicant had been able to fulfil obligations which constituted normal forms through which a Muslim practised his religion - Supreme Military Council's order for applicant's compulsory retirement was not based on his religious opinions and beliefs but on his conduct and attitude. Accordingly, measure did not amount to interference with right guaranteed by Article 9 since it was not prompted by the way applicant manifested his religion. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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