The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its judgment on the 15th January in the combined cases of Eweida and Chaplin, and Ladele and McFarlane. The four applicants are practicing Christians who argued that UK law violated their Convention rights under Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which respectively protect freedom of religion and prohibit discrimination. The Court found in favour of Ms Eweida however it found against all other claimants.
The Court took the opportunity to adequately set out the limits of protection of freedom of religion under the Convention. The Court ruled that there is a right to manifest individual faith by wearing religious adornments but not by objecting to practices that are protected by anti-discrimination legislation.
In Eweida, the Strasbourg Court found that the applicant’s right to wear a visible cross showing her religious beliefs outweighed the employer’s aim of maintaining a corporate image. The Court noted that there was no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others. In Ms Chaplin's case however, which was superficially almost identical, the Court held the British courts had resolved competing rights equitably. Here health and safety reasons for restricting the applicant from wearing a cross were considered to be of “inherently greater magnitude” than the reasons for restriction in Eweida.
The cases of Ladele and McFarlane concerned a civil registrar and a relationship councillor, respectively, who complained that they were unfairly dismissed after refusing to provide their services to same-sex couples, in violation of their employers’ equality and ethical policies. The Court refused to find a violation of Article 9 and found that their right to manifest their beliefs by not condoning homosexuality were outweighed by their employers’ aims of providing a service without discrimination.
Ms Eweida was awarded €2,000 in compensation and €30,000 in costs
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said the judgment had “drawn a bright line” between the right to freedom of religious expression and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of conscience”.
Director of the ICCL, Mark Kelly said “the Court has quite correctly upheld the fundamental right of all people to express and manifest their faith in the public sphere. The Court found that this right can only be restricted where there is a reasonable justification, and only by proportionate means”. In light of this, Mr Kelly concluded saying “Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law”
Click here to read the judgment
Click here to read a UK Human Rights Blog article
Click here to read an ICCL press release
Meanwhile in Belgium, in December 2012, a Belgian Constitutional Court concluded that a ban on face coverings (also known as a “burka ban”) does not violate fundamental rights such as the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of expression and the right to private life, provided that the ban is not interpreted in such a way that it also covers places of worship.
Click here to read the judgment (in French)
Click here to read a Strasbourg Observers Blog Article on the case
In other news, in December 2012, the UK High Court in Louisa Hodkin -v- Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages upheld a decision not to register a chapel of the Church of Scientology as ‘a place of meeting for religious worship’ which in turn means it is not a registered building for the solemnisation of marriages.
The Court followed the 1970 court of appeal case of Segerdal which ruled that another Scientology chapel was not a meeting place for religious worship because its services involved "instructions in the tenets of a philosophy concerned with man" and did not involve “acts of worship”. Judge Ouseley added that the issue should be analysed by the Supreme Court
Click here to read the judgment
Click here to read a UK Human Rights Blog article on the judgment