Eweida and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37

In brief

The Strasbourg Court considered four joined applications by Christian applicants complaining of religious discrimination in employment (Eweida, a British Airways check-in worker wearing a cross; Chaplin, an NHS nurse wearing a cross; Ladele, a Registrar refusing to conduct civil partnerships; McFarlane, a Relate counsellor refusing same-sex counselling). The court held that Eweida's dismissal violated Article 9 (manifestation of belief) but that the other three applications failed. The court set out the Article 9/10 framework for belief manifestation in employment: manifestation is subject to proportionality, and employers' legitimate aims (including securing the rights of others) can justify restrictions.

Key provisions

• paras-79-84 — Manifestation of belief — Article 9 framework: Article 9 protects not only the holding but also the manifestation of religious belief. Restrictions on manifestation require justification under Article 9(2): prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society for specified aims, and proportionate. The test is fact-sensitive.
• paras-105-106 — Ladele — securing the rights of others as legitimate aim: Where an employer's policy pursues the rights of others (e.g., same-sex couples' right to equal treatment), refusal to provide an accommodation that would undermine that policy can be justified under Article 9(2). The employer is entitled to require employees to comply with non-discrimination policies.

When relevant

Any belief-manifestation case in employment or service provision, Article 9 / Article 14 ECHR analyses, Post-FWS cases where respondents invoke Forstater belief protection