Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:39:13.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EWEIDA AND OTHERS: A NEW ERA FOR ARTICLE 9?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Julie Maher
Julie Maher*
Affiliation:
DPhil Candidate Balliol College, University of Oxford, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eweida and others considered the claims of four religious individuals whose employers had rejected their requests for accommodation of their religious practices at work, and who had failed in their attempts to contest those decisions before English courts. However, as a judgment it speaks to a wider array of questions of principle, particularly the appropriate interpretation of Article 9 claims. The case provided the ECtHR with an opportunity to clarify a number of discrete doctrines and interpretative approaches within Article 9 jurisprudence, and the Court decided to use this occasion to elucidate the issues raised by the applicants' cases.

Keywords

Article 9 European Convention on Human Rightsemployment rightsEweida v United Kingdomfreedom of religion and conscience
Type
Shorter Articles and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 213 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The applicants were challenging the English courts’ findings in a series of judgments relating to the rights of religious employees under Article 9 of the Convention and under the religious discrimination provisions of the English statutory discrimination scheme: Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80, [2010] ICR 890; Chaplin v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2010] UKET 1702886/09; Ladele v Islington LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, [2010] 1 WLR 955; McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, [2010] IRLR 872.

2 Eweida and others v UK [2013] ECHR 37. Throughout this paper the Strasbourg judgment will be referred to as Eweida and others, while the domestic Court of Appeal judgment involving Ms Eweida, Eweida v British Airways (n 1) will be referred to simply as Eweida.

3 See, for example, references to the lack of impact on Ms Ladele's freedom to worship and to the issue of whether her view on marriage was a core part of her religion, Ladele (n 1) [52].

4 Art 9(2).

5 Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1979) 1 EHRR 711; Folgerø and others v Norway (2007) ECHR 546.

6 However, it seems such coercion much reach a relatively high level for it to be deemed an interference, see Angeleni v Sweden (1988) 10 EHRR 123.

7 Buscarini v San Marino (2000) 30 EHRR 208.

8 For instance, where an employee is dismissed from their job solely because of their religious beliefs.

9 Some would argue, and at times the ECtHR has seemed to imply (in cases such as Buscarini v San Marino (n 7)) that forcing a religious individual to act contrary to their beliefs is in breach of the forum internum. Space precludes any assessment of the merits of such arguments. For a detailed exposition see Taylor, PM, Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2005)Google Scholar Chapter 3.

10 This includes rights contained in Protocols which have been signed and ratified by the Member States in question.

11 In the context of religious discrimination, though found to be an interference with Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 (right to private life), see Hoffmann v Austria (1994) 17 EHRR 293. (involving the denial of custody to a Jehovah's Witness mother). In relation to conscientious objection to military service, see Thlimmenos v Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 15.

12 Where discriminatory treatment is a fundamental aspect of the case the Court will be more likely to address Article 14 arguments. See, for instance, Dudgeon v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 149.

13 Equality Act 2010, section 19.

14 Eweida and others, para 12.

15 ibid para 13.

16 ibid para 11.

17 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/1660.

18 Eweida (n 1) [18]–[19].

19 [2008] UKEAT/0123/08 [60], endorsed by Court of Appeal in Eweida (n 1) at [24].

20 Eweida (n 1) [9].

21 ibid [22].

22 Ms Chaplin was initially moved to a non-nursing temporary position for eight months before the position concluded, Eweida and others, para 20.

23 Eweida and others, para 21–22.

24 Ladele (n 1) [10].

25 The introduction of the Statistics and Registration Act 2007 altered Ms Ladele's employment status, making her an employee of the local authority rather than an office holder of the Registrar General, Eweida and others, para 27.

26 Ladele (n 1) [52].

27 ibid.

28 McFarlane (n 1).

29 ibid [4].

30 Eweida and others, para 37.

31 ibid para 40.

32 See Hill, M and Sandberg, R, ‘Is Nothing Sacred? Clashing Symbols in a Secular World’ (2007) Public Law 488Google Scholar; Gibson, N, ‘Faith in the Courts: Religious Dress and Human Rights’ (2007) 66 CLJ 657Google Scholar; Vickers, L, Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace (Hart 2008)Google Scholar; Cumper, P and Lewis, T, ‘“Public Reason”, Judicial Deference and the Right to Freedom of Religion and Belief under the Human Rights Act 1998’ (2011) 22(2) Kings Law Journal 131–56Google Scholar.

33 R (on the application of Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, [2006] 2 All ER 487.

34 Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 932, [2005] HRLR 32. See in particular the Lord's reliance on Jewish Liturgical Association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France 2009 BHRC 27, App no 27417/95 (ECtHR, 27 June 2000) (Commission decision).

35 Begum (n 33) [25].

36 ibid [2].

37 Early successful statutory discrimination cases included Williams-Drabble v Pathway Care Solutions ET Case No 2601718/2004 (2 December 2004); Khan v G & S Spencer Group ET Case No 1803250/2004 (12 January 2005); Noah v Sarah Desrosiers (Wedge) ET, Case No: 2201867/07 (29 May 2008).

38 R (Watkins-Singh) v Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin), [2008] ELR 561.

39 On the solitary believer's practice not qualifying as a ground of disadvantage, see Eweida (n 1) [15].

40 Eweida and others, para 94.

41 ibid para 95.

42 ibid para 99.

43 ibid para 109.

44 ibid para 106.

45 Eweida and others, para 105.

46 ibid para 58.

47 ibid.

48 Martinez-Torron, J, ‘Religious Liberty in European Jurisprudence’ in Hill, M (ed), Religious Liberty and Human Rights (University of Wales Press 2002) 119Google Scholar.

49 (1981) 3 EHRR 218.

50 (1983) 37 DR 142. See also Valsamis v Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 294 and Stavros, S, ‘Freedom of Religion and Claims for Exemption from Generally Applicable, Neutral Laws: Lessons from across the Pond?’ (1997) EHRLR 607Google Scholar.

51 Sahin v Turkey (2007) 44 EHRR 5.

52 Dahlab v Switzerland DR ECHR 2001-V, App no 42393/98; Dogru v France (2009) 49 EHRR 8.

53 App no 18429/06 (ECtHR, 7 December 2010) para 45.

54 (2012) 54 EHRR 15.

55 Skugar and others v Russia [2009] ECHR 2159.

56 ibid, ‘The Law’.

57 Eweida and others, para 82.

58 ibid.

59 ibid para 82.

60 [2004] 2 SCR 551, cited by the ECtHR at para 49 of the Eweida and others judgment.

61 Eweida and others, paras 89 and 97.

62 ibid paras 103 and 108.

63 See Scalia J's comments in Employment Division v Smith 494 US 872 (1990), 886–887.

64 Thomas v Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 US 707, 716 (1981).

65 Eweida and others, para 64.

66 Herman, D, An Unfortunate Coincidence: Jews, Jewishness, and English Law (Oxford University Press 2011), 46–8Google Scholar.

67 ibid 68, 82–5.

68 On this point see also McCrudden, JC, ‘Multiculturalism, Freedom of Religion, Equality, and the British Constitution: The JFS Case Considered’ (2011) 9(1) ICON 200–29Google Scholar on the failure of English judges to adopt a ‘cognitively internal’ perspective.

69 Gunn, TJ, ‘Adjudicating Rights of Conscience under the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Van der Vyver, JD and Witte, J (eds), Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff 1996).Google Scholar

70 Edge, PW, ‘Determining Religion in English Courts’ (2012) OJLR 412Google Scholar.

71 See references to Ms Ladele's belief in traditional marriage not being a ‘core’ Christian belief, Ladele (n 1) [52]. Similarly see Sedley LJ's analysis of group versus individual disadvantage, Eweida (n 1) [24].

72 See R (Playfoot) v Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin), [2007] HRLR 34 where the High Court rejected a student's challenge to her school's refusal to allow her to wear a purity ring because it was not ‘intimately linked’ to her Christian beliefs. In Ghai v Newcastle City Council [2009] EWHC 978 (Admin), [2009] WLR (D) 151 the High Court held that whilst open air cremation was a manifestation of Hindu belief as it was ‘sufficiently close to the core of one strand of orthodox Hinduism’, this was not so for Sikhs finding the practice to be a mere matter of tradition and not belief.

73 In Eweida (n 1) [24].

74 Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Submission in Eweida and Chaplin v UK App nos 48420/10 and 59842/1’ available at <http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/legal/ehrc_submission_to_ecthr_sep_2011.pdf> [27].

75 An audio recording of the hearing is available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Press/Multimedia/Webcasts+of+public+hearings/webcastEN_media?id=20120904-1&lang=en&flow=high>.

76 Evans, MD, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (Cambridge University Press 1997) 300–3Google Scholar.

77 Stedman v UK (1997) 23 EHRR CD168, para 28; Konttinen v Finland App no 24949/94 (1996) Series A no 87, 3 December 1996 Commission, 75; Kalaç v Turkey (1997) 27 EHRR 552.

78 Ahmad v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 126.

79 ibid para 11.

80 Konttinen (n 77) paras 74–75.

81 In Eweida (n 1) the UK Court of Appeal noted that opposition to religious manifestation in the workplace might conceivably justify a ‘blanket ban’ on such practices, [40]. In relation to detriment suffered because of an employee's out-of-work activities the English courts have been more protective, finding a breach of contract in Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch).

82 See Kosteki v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [2006] ECHR 403 affirming Stedman (n 77) and Ahmad (n 78).

83 Eweida and others, para 83.

84 ibid.

85 Kosiek v Germany Series A No 105 (1986) 9 EHRR 328; Glasenapp v Germany Series A No 104 (1987) 9 EHRR 25 (refusal of permanent employment because of membership of extreme political parties did not interfere with art 10). See Vickers Religious Discrimination and the Workplace (n 32) 87–91.

86 (1985) DR 101.

87 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493.

88 Contrast Kalaç v Turkey (n 77).

89 Vickers Religious Discrimination and the Workplace (n 32) 88, 117; Gibson, ‘Faith in the Courts’ (n 32).

90 Copsey (n 34) [65]–[66].

91 Sahin (n 51); Dahlab (n 52). It is often used in conjunction with the free-contract doctrine discussed in the next section.

92 Sahin (n 51). See also Karaduman v Turkey (1993) 74 DR 93, App no 16278/90 (Commission, 3 May 1993).

93 In the military context see Kalaç (n 77).

94 Jewish Liturgical Association (n 34).

95 ibid para 81.

96 ibid paras 81–84.

97 See Lord Nicholls analysis of the Strasbourg jurisprudence in R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] UKHL 15, [2005] 2 AC 246, [38].

98 Eweida and others, para 59.

99 Begum (n 33).

100 R (X) v The Headteachers of Y School [2007] EWHC 298 (Admin), [2008] 1 All ER 249, Silber J.

101 Eweida and others, para 59 citing Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397, Arslan v Turkey (2001) 31 EHRR 9 and Sahin (n 51).

102 Eweida and others, para 83.

103 Konttinen (n 77); Stedman (n 77).

104 Eweida and others, para 83.

105 ibid.

106 Begum (n 33) [93]–[94], [41].

107 Gibson ‘Faith in the Courts’ (n 32); Hill and Sandberg ‘Is Nothing Sacred?’ (n 32).

108 Eweida and others, para 91.

109 ibid para 99.

110 This point is referred to by the Court, ibid, para 109, and by Judges Vučinić and de Gaetano at para 5 of their partly dissenting opinion.

111 ibid paras 32–34.

112 ibid para 109.

113 Eweida and others, para 109.

114 ibid para 94.

115 ibid.

116 ibid para 95.

117 Eweida and others, ‘Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Bratza and Björgvinsson’, para 4.

118 ibid.

119 ibid para 5.

120 ibid.

121 Eweida (n 1) [34].

122 ibid [33]–[38].

123 ibid [22].

124 Rivers, J, ‘Promoting Religious Equality’ (2012) 1 OJLR 1, 396Google Scholar.

125 ibid 371.

126 The case has been compared with the more protective stance in the US case of Thomas v Review Board (n 64), see Hatzis, N, ‘Personal Religious Beliefs in the Workplace: How Not to Define Indirect Discrimination’ (2011) 74 MLR 287Google Scholar, 292.

127 Eweida and others, para 94.

128 For example, the Court refers to Mr McFarlane's loss of his job as a ‘severe sanction with grave consequences for the applicant’, Eweida and others, para 108. See also para 106 (in relation to Ms Ladele).

129 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick note that ‘the Christian employee who ultimately ‘chooses’ to seek alternative employment is likely to find a convivial work environment more easily than someone outside that tradition’, Harris, DJ, O'Boyle, M, Warbrick, C and Bates, E, Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2009) 434Google Scholar.

130 Lautsi v Italy (2012) 54 EHRR 3.

131 ibid paras 72–73.

132 ‘Application to ECHR’, available at <http://www.christianconcern.com/sites/default/files/Chaplin_Full_Submission.pdf> [35].

133 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Malinverni joined with Judge Kalaydjieva in Lautsi (n 130) para 6.

134 Ringhelm, J, ‘Rights, Religion and the Public Sphere: The European Court of Human Rights in Search of a Theory?’ in Ungureanu, C and Zucca, L (eds), A European Dilemma: Religion and the Public Sphere (Cambridge University Press 2012) 283Google Scholar.

135 R Sandberg, ‘The Adventures of Religious Freedom: Do Judges Understand Religion?’ (SSRN, 21 March 2012) <http://ssrncom/abstract=2032643>.

136 McCrudden, ‘The JFS Case Considered’ (n 68) 20, citing Ladele (n 1) [52].

137 Ladele (n 1) [52].

138 Eweida and others, para 70.

139 ibid para 106 (Ladele), 109 (McFarlane).

140 ibid para 106, citing Evans v the United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 34.

141 ibid para 71.

142 Redfearn v UK [2012] ECHR 1878, 17. Though the judges dissented from the majority, it was not in relation to this point.

143 Opuz v Turkey (2010) 50 EHRR 28.

144 Orsus and others v Croatia (2009) 49 EHRR 26.

145 Kozak v Poland [2010] ECHR 280.

146 Eweida and others, para 105.

147 See eg Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v Moldova (2002) 35 EHRR 13.

148 Thlimmenos v Greece (n 11) is generally viewed as a case recognizing a failure to treat different cases distinctly rather than a recognition of indirect discrimination. Few cases based on this approach have been accepted by the court: Coster v UK (2001) 33 EHRR 20; Chapman v UK (2001) 33 EHRR 18; Beard v UK (2001) 33 EHRR 19.

149 Sahin (n 51) para 165.

150 Vakulenko, A, ‘“Islamic Headscarves” and the European Convention on Human Rights: An Intersectional Perspective’ (2007) 16 Social & Legal Studies 183Google Scholar, 191.

151 SAS v France App no 43835/11.

152 Pei, S, ‘Unveiling Inequality: Burqa Bans and Nondiscrimination Jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights’ (2013) 122 YaleLJ 1089Google Scholar.

153 McCrudden ‘The JFS Case Considered’ (n 68).

154 See Ringhelm's criticism of the privatization thesis in the Court's case law on religious freedom (n 134).

155 See comments such as those of Sedley LJ in Eweida (n 1) [40] and Lord Philip's reference to ‘normal’ religions based on choice in the Supreme Court's judgment in R (E) v JFS Governing Body [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728 [44] highlighted by McCrudden ‘The JFS Case Reconsidered’ (n 68) 221.

156 Brown, W, Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire (Princeton University Press 2006)Google Scholar. See also J Rivers, ‘Promoting Religious Equality’ (n 124).

157 See Cumper and Lewis (n 32).

158 See, for example, Lord Carey's intervention McFarlane (n 1). He proposed the introduction of a special system of courts to address the claims of religious individuals.