SOMMAIRE: 1. Introduction. Sur l’existence d’un droit à l’objection de conscience – 2. La consécration du droit à l’objection de conscience: entre revirement de jurisprudence et correction tardive d’une interprétation passée – 3. Les implications du droit à l’objection de conscience: entre souhait d’effectivité et souci d’encadrement – 4. Conclusion.

ABSTRACT: In the Bayatyan v. Armenia case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has decided to reverse the solution previously adopted by the Chamber and devote a right to conscientious objection. Obviously, this result is remarkable because totally new and against the grain of earlier decisions, particularly the decisions of the former European Commission of Human Rights. To find a breach of Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the Grand Chamber has used – again – a dynamic and evolutive approach, and has “reiterated (…) that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today” (§ 102).