Article 9 cases Flashcards
Ivanova v Bulgaria (2009)
Bulgarian authorities had pressurised a school employee (swimming pool manager) to renounce her religion
Part of the ‘Word of Life’- Christian Evangelical group not registered in Bulgaria
Dismissed her on the basis of her religious beliefs- saying shes not qualified for her post
Breached Art 9
States cannot interfere with the absolute right to hold or change belief
Church of Bessarabia v Moldova (2002)
Moldovan Authorities refused to recognise or register the Church of Bessarabia.
Supreme Court backed decision- refusal meant that its priests could not give services and its members could not meet to practice their religion.
The refusal to recognise the Church of Bessarabia violated the applicants rights to freedom of religion
KH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016]
Considers both Art 9 and s13 as an independent provision as different from the Convention rights
s13 was included to respond to concerns that there would be too much constraint on religious freedom- concern it would make it hard to employ only people with a sufficient degree of religious belief or acceptable moral rectitude.
Eweida and Others v The United Kingdom 2013
Eweida and Chaplin were concerned about restrictions on the wearing of religious symbols at work.
Eweida worked at British Airways and Chaplin was a geriatric nurse at a State Hospital
Complained that their employers prohibited them from visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks at work.
Violation of Art 9 for Eweida- domestic authorities failed to protect her rights to manifest her religion
No Violation of Art 9 for Chaplin
Campbell and Cosans v the United Kingdom 1982
Two mothers whose children attended schools at which they were at risk of experiencing corporal punishment
The Court ruled that their right to ensure education in line with their philosophical convictions had been breached.
Grainger v Nicholson (2010)
Mr Nicholson was made redundant from Grainger plc due to his belief in climate change.
It was held that climate change is classed as a protected belief under Art 9
R (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment (2005)
Was an unsuccessful challenge to the prohibition of school corporal punishment in the Education Act 1996 by the headmasters of private Christian Schools in the UK.
They claimed it was a breach of their freedom of religion under Art 9
X v Y (2020)
The employee refused to return to work in July 2020 after the first lockdown due to the worry of getting Covid-19 and passing it on to her clinically vulnerable partner.
The employer refused to pay her; she claimed unfair dismissal.
The tribunal referred to the 5-part test in Grainger v Nicholson and accepted that the fear was genuine, and it met the test of cogency and worthy of respect in society.
However, is not an accepted belief- widely held viewpoint not a belief.
Arrowsmith v United Kingdom (1978)
Pacifist handing out leaflets to soldiers urging them to desert
This was a specific action and not a general expression of her pacifist ideals
Pacifism is a protected belief, but if an applicant cannot prove that the activity is a manifestation of that belief, they will not be protected under Art 9
Pretty v UK (2002)
The applicant was paralysed as a result from a degenerative and terminal illness, and sought a guarantee from the DPP that her husband would be immune from prosecution if he helped her commit suicide.
It was seen not to violate art 9
Wierowska v HC-One Oval Limited [2022]
Wierowska was a roman catholic care worker who was bringing an Employment law claim after dismissal due to refusal to have the Covid vaccine on religious grounds
Vatican had said it was acceptable to take the Covid vaccine, but she argued that her views didn’t need to be orthodox or mainstream, so long as it is a manifestation of the belief.
Applied test from Eweida- was satisfied that her views about the vaccine were intimately connected with her religious faith and that there was a sufficiently close and direct nexus between her refusal to take a COVID vaccine and her underlying beliefs as to entitle her to rely on that religious faith as a protected characteristic
Stedman v UK (1997)
Stedman worked for an employment agency who required staff to work sundays from December 1991. Due to her religion, Christianity, she worked a total of 10 out of 25 Sundays, then gave her manager one months notice that she will not work Sundays.
Her contract of employment was amended to include Sunday as a normal working day, refused to sign it, and was dismissed and paid one month’s pay. claimed it was a breach of her rights under Art 9. There was no interference with her Art 9(1) rights due to her being dismissed for not wanting to work.
Dahlab v Switzerland (2001)
Primary school teacher prohibited from wearing Islamic headscarf (hijab) in the performance of her teaching duties.
Held that the interference with the teacher’s freedom to manifest her religion was justifiable and proportionate as a measure to protect the freedom of others, namely the schoolchildren.
Dakir v Belgium (2017)
Shown to be no violation for wearing a face covering in public.
SAS v France (2014)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously ruled that a French law which prohibited the wearing of clothing that covered the face while in public spaces was not a violation of the protected rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
