Eweida & Ors v The United Kingdom (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)

Conjoined appeals in four cases concerning alleged failures to protect the appellants' rights to manifest their religious belief either through dress or performance of services. One appeal succeeded, the others failed.

The applicants were complaining that the UK domestic law failed adequately to protect their right to manifest their religion. Two applicants, (1) a check-in worker for British Airways and (2) a nurse on a geriatric ward, were complaining specifically about restrictions placed by their employers on their wearing of a cross visibly around their necks. The other two, (3) a registrar for births, deaths and marriages employed by the local authority and (4) a counsellor working for Relate, complained specifically about sanctions taken against them by their employers as a result of their concerns about performing services which they considered to condone homosexual union.

In this judgment the ECHR sets out the full background to each application, the relevant domestic and international law, the parties' submissions and the general principles of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (discrimination). It then applies the principles to each of the applications as follows:

(1) the BA worker: they found that while the employers wish to maintain a corporate identity was legitimate, their response (in sending her home without pay until she complied with the dress code that prevented the wearing of the cross) was disproportionate. A subsequent change of dress code demonstrated that the prohibition was not crucial. Consequently they concluded that where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the UK had failed sufficiently to protect the the applicant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of the positive obligation under Article 9.

(2) the nurse: the Court acknowledged that the applicant's right to manifest her religion by wearing her cross visibly "must weigh heavily in the balance". However, the reason given for asking her to remove it - the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward - was "inherently of a greater magnitude" than that which applied in respect of the BA worker. This was also an area where the domestic authorities must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation so it followed that the actions of the employer were not disproportionate.

(3) the registrar: the Court acknowledged that the local authority's requirement that all registrars of births, marriages and deaths also be designated as civil partnership registrars had a particularly detrimental impact on the applicant because of her religious beliefs and that this requirement was introduced after she had been appointed. However the local authority's policy sought to protect the Convention right of others and so could not be said to have exceeded the wide margin of appreciation available.

(4) the counsellor: the Court noted that an individual's decision to seek employment and responsibilities which  will knowingly have an impact on his freedom to manifest his religious belief is not determinative of when considering whether there has been an interference with Article 9 rights. However the most important factor was that the employer was seeking to implement a service without discrimination and again the margin of appreciation had not been breached.

Published: 15/01/2013 15:42

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions

message