Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations Box 5.2: Preventing political extremism in the German Army Reserve148 In the case of Erdel v. Germany, the applicant was a professional lawyer and an army reservist. He complained to the European Court of Human Rights that his rights of freedom of association and freedom of expression had been violated because his call-up to the military reserve had been revoked due to his membership of a rightwing populist political party. As a consequence, although he retained his rank as a lieutenant in the reserve, the applicant was not eligible for future training. The party (Die Republikaner) had been investigated by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution but had not been banned by the Federal Constitutional Court. The applicant had unsuccessfully challenged the revocation before the German Federal Administrative Court, which found that there was sufficient material to establish an initial suspicion that the Die Republikaner party was disloyal to the Constitution. The German military authorities and administrative courts based their decisions that the revocation was lawful on Article 49 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, in conjunction with Section 8 of the Soldiers Act, which provides that a soldier must recognize the free democratic order within the meaning of the German Basic Law and act at all times in such a way as to uphold it. The European Court of Human Rights found this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded. The revocation was not a disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s rights of freedom of expression and association, and had been undertaken in “the interests of national security” and “for the prevention of disorder or crime”, both legitimate aims under Article 11(2) of the ECHR. The Court referred to Germany’s experience during the Third Reich and the concept of a “democracy capable of defending itself” subsequently embodied in the Basic Law. Bearing in mind the role of the army in society, the Court recognized that “it is a legitimate aim in any democratic society to have a politically neutral army”. In the circumstances, a fair balance had been struck between the fundamental right of the individual and the legitimate interest of a democratic state. The Court stressed that “even though no criticism had been levelled at the way the applicant actually performed his duties, […] the applicant bore a special responsibility as he held the position of lieutenant on the reserve list, namely, a senior post within the German army.” Moreover, the decision did not result in the loss of the applicant’s livelihood. In these circumstances, the Court did not find that the revocation amounted to a disproportionate and, hence, unjustified restriction of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression or freedom of association. 148 European Court of Human Rights, Erdel v. Germany (Application no 30067/04, judgement of 13 February 2007). 81