Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

However, the Government underlines the wide margin of appreciation which is properly open to a State in this context (Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25, § 59) by reference to four matters.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

The Government further submit that there is either no separate issue arising under Article 14 (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 25-26, §§ 64-70), or that any difference in treatment is justified for the same reasons submitted in the context of Article 8. In such circumstances, the Government submit that the applicants" complaints are manifestly ill-founded (within the meaning of Article 35 § 3) or, in the alternative, do not give rise to a violation of the Convention.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

Furthermore, and as to the military context of the applications, the applicants point out that the Court's jurisprudence provides that the demands of "pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness" apply to service personnel as to other persons, that fundamental rights must be tolerated in the army of a democratic State just as it must be in the society that such an army serves, and that it is for the Court to assess whether the Government have substantiated its concerns about the threat to military discipline by specific examples (Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten ï��sterreichs and Gubi v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, p. 17, §§ 36 and 38).