Eweida and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37

In brief

The Strasbourg Court considered four joined applications by Christian applicants complaining of restrictions on manifesting their religion at work (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 who would not give an unequivocal commitment to provide psycho-sexual therapy to same-sex couples). Ms Ladele complained only of discrimination under Article 14 taken with Article 9; the other three relied principally on Article 9, with Article 14 in addition (paras 51, 103, 107). The court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 9 (manifestation of belief) in respect of Ms Eweida, who was not dismissed: she was sent home without pay for refusing to conceal her cross and later returned to her post (paras 12–13, 90–95). It found no violation in respect of the other three applicants. The court set out the Article 9 framework for belief manifestation in employment (paras 79–88; Article 10 appears only in a passing comparison at para 83): 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 : Ms Ladele's complaint was decided under Article 14 taken with Article 9, by asking whether the refusal to make an exception for her had an objective and reasonable justification, not under Article 9(2). The Court accepted that the local authority's policy aimed to secure the rights of others protected by the Convention (e.g., same-sex couples' right to equal treatment) and, having noted that the consequences for her were serious, held that in all the circumstances the national authorities had not exceeded the wide margin allowed when competing Convention rights are balanced (paras 103–106). It did not state a general entitlement of employers to require compliance 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