withdraw from Germany66 or when German military personnel were dismissed for criticizing government policy on television.67 Overall, the European Court has tended to give states a wide margin of appreciation in cases involving restrictions of the rights of service personnel. In part, this is due to a generally deferential attitude to claims of national security. Nevertheless, if a state is unable to show that a restriction has a legal basis, it would be unable to take advantage of these restrictions. The proportionality test employed by the Convention system requires consideration of the nature and extent to which a restriction on rights is justified by a legitimate objective. We return to this below. Political neutrality As mentioned above, restrictions on these rights may be justified because of the need to ensure the political neutrality of the armed forces. This is an objective that is recognized in international human rights law and practice. Para. 23 of the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security states that, “while providing for the individual service member’s civil rights, each state will ensure that its armed forces are politically neutral”. It is also clear that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will allow restrictions on the rights of members of the armed forces designed to achieve this purpose, as the box below shows. 68 Box 8.2 Political Neutrality: The ECHR and Hungary68 In a case involving restrictions imposed in Hungary that prevented members of the armed forces, the police, and security services from joining any political party and from engaging in any political activity, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no violation of Arts. 10 or 11 of the ECHR since the restrictions pursued legitimate aims, namely the protection of national security and public safety and the prevention of disorder. The limits were intended to depoliticize the police and hence to contribute to the consolidation and maintenance of pluralistic democracy. Bearing in mind the important role of the police in society, the Court found the restrictions to be consistent with democratic principles. The Court stated: 41. … Police officers are invested with coercive powers to regulate the conduct of citizens, in some countries being authorised to carry arms in the discharge of their duties. Ultimately the police force is at the service of the State. Members of the public are therefore entitled to expect that in their dealings with the police they are confronted with politically neutral officers who are detached from the political fray. Similar principles would apply to members of the armed forces. In their case, however, restrictions on participation in local politics are perhaps harder to justify because the need for neutrality in order to avoid a conflict of interest applies primarily at the national level. The right to vote and stand for office Art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; 66  Le Cour Grandmaison and Fritz v. France, European Commission of Human Rights, 6 July 1987, Decisions and Reports, Vol. 53, 1987, p. 150. 67  E.S. v. Germany, European Commission of Human Rights, 29 November 1995, Decisions and Reports, Vol. 84, 1995, p. 58. 68  Rekvényi v. Hungary, European Court of Human Rights, 20 May 1999, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 30, 2000, p. 519. 59 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel