Conscientious objection again

The applicant in Rutkauskas v Lithuania [2025] ECHR Application no. 15816/20 was a Jehovah’s Witness and religious minister who was called up for military service under the Law on Conscription. He refused on grounds of religious belief and asked to perform civilian service instead. His request was refused, and the military authorities also decided not to exempt him from initial mandatory military service [1]. Appeals to the domestic courts were unsuccessful.

Before the ECHR, he complained under Article 9 of the Convention that, despite his genuinely-held religious beliefs and his conscience, he was denied the right to refuse military service. Even though he had never denied his civic obligations, no alternative civilian service had been provided for by Lithuanian law [4].

The Government asked for the application to be struck out. Following the Court’s judgment in Teliatnikov v. Lithuania [2022] ECHR no. 51914/19 (which we missed), the Lithuanian authorities had identified the need for systemic reform of the alternative national defence service and had taken steps to remedy the relevant legal framework by drawing up guidelines for draft legislation. The Government had also undertaken to keep the Court informed on further developments in the adoption of provisions amending the legal framework on conscription: in short, “We’re working on it” [5]. It also argued that, even though he had been affected to some extent by the decisions of the domestic authorities, Mr Rutkauskas had never faced, nor would he face, the risk of actual mandatory military service or alternative national defence service [6].

The Court noted that the general principles of freedom of thought, conscience and religion were one of the foundations of a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention [12], and a system which imposed an obligation on citizens with potentially serious implications for conscientious objectors would fail to strike a fair balance between the interests of society as a whole and those of the individual [13]. It had previously found in Teliatnikov (which also concerned a Jehovah’s Witness) that mandatory military service failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of society as a whole and those of Mr Teliatnikov, who had never refused to comply with his civic obligations in general [14].

The Government had admitted that the present case was on all fours with Teliatnikov [15]; and the impugned decision was based on a system that did not allow any conscience-based exceptions to mandatory military service or service intrinsically linked to it, and did not consider the performance of alternative civilian service [16]. It therefore failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of society and those of individuals with genuinely-held religious convictions and could not be considered as “necessary in a democratic society” [16]. There had therefore been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention [17].

Lyndwood Lecture – a reminder

The annual Lyndwood Lecture, arranged alternately by the Ecclesiastical Law Society and the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, will take place on 8 October at 18.15 at St Aloysius Church in Somers Town: 20 Phoenix Rd, London NW1 1TA (conveniently located for Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross stations). Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra, Sostituto at the Vatican Secretariat of State, will be speaking on ‘Synodality and the principle of subsidiarity’.  The charge to attend the lecture and the following drinks reception is £15. You can register to attend here.

Individual cups at Holy Communion

Further to his article in Journal of Religious History in “Quick Links”, Andrew Atherstone has provided additional information on the use of individual cups. On the current advice of the Church of England’s Legal Advisory Commission [LAC], last year it published this clarification at the top of its previous negative statement,

“At its meeting on 13 June 2024, the Legal Advisory Commission noted that there are two respectable views on the matter of the use of individual cups at Holy Communion.”

He comments “[i]n other words, the LAC now acknowledges it remains an open question, not settled one way or the other. This important clarification, although published 15 months ago, seems to have been entirely missed by the church press”.

Quick links

• Andrew Atherstone. Journal of Religious History: Germ Panic and Chalice Hygiene in the Church of England, c.1895–1930.

• Ashleigh Keall and Howard Kislowicz, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion: On Prohibiting Pupil Prayers: Conceptions of Religion and Secularism in Webber Academy (Canada) and Michaela School (UK).

And finally…

Bringing a new meaning to “High Church”, the Religion Media Centre reports that the 700-year-old tower of All Hallows Staining Church near Fenchurch Street railway station in the City of London, has been suspended 45 feet above ground on stilts while the earth below is removed for a new office development. “The church has had a dramatic history surviving the Great Fire of London in 1666, but collapsing after foundations were weakened by grave digging, then being rebuilt only to be demolished in 1870, But the tower, built in 1320,  survived it all and after the building works, will be secured at ground level as part of a new green public space”. Photographs and a further article are here.