Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Art. 9) (Courts and Art. 9…

- - - - The test for manifestation is that "the act must be intimately linked to the religion or belief"
        
        Established in the Eweida case
    - - Exception: This isn't an automatic protection so some beliefs/religions are not covered. For e.g. the right to die
        
        Pretty v UK
- - - - C challenged policy via JR as she was not able to wear her religious dress.
    - - Lord Bingham held that C's voluntary choice in attending this particular school meant that there was no interference
        
        HL also held that if there had been interference, it would have been justified.
        
        Lawful: Yes, policy based on statutory authority, consultations done and affected parties duly informed
        +
        Legitimate aim: Yes, protection of other student against being pressured to adopt certain types of religious dress
        +
        Proportionate: the doctrine of deference took precedence as courts respected the judgment and expertise of the school governors in determining whether the measures were proportionate in this situation
  - - - BA eventually changed policy and C sued for lost earnings via indirect horizontal effect of domestic legislation.
    - - ECtHR held that while courts can operate in the margin of appreciation, the proper test to determine interference was that of proportionality and BA's prevention of the display of religion was not proportionate to their desire to project a certain corporate image
    - - C worked as a nurse in hospital ward, govt policy was that no necklaces can be worn so as to reduce risk of injury to patients. C challenged the policy as she wanted to wear her religious necklace.
      - ECtHR held that despite the freedom to manifest religion being important, the protection of health and safety was of a higher order and the margin of appreciation must be allowed. The Court also deferred to the greater judgment adn expertise of hospital managers.