header-logo header-logo

25 January 2013
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Religion—Employment

Eweida and others v United Kingdom (App. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 & 36516/10)

European Court of Human Rights, Judge Thor Bjorgvinsson (president), Judges Bratza, Garlicki, Hirvela, Kalaydjeva, Vucinic and Gaetano, & L Early (section registrar), 4 September & 11 December 2012, 15 February 2013

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has reviewed the application of the right to manifest one’s religion under Art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights in an employment context. As a general approach, where an individual complains of a restriction on freedom of religion in the workplace, rather than holding that the possibility of changing job would negate any interference with that right, the better approach is to weigh that possibility in the overall balance when considering whether or not the restriction was proportionate. The court has also stressed the margin of appreciation to be afforded to member states in carrying out that balancing exercise, when finding in favour of one applicant who had been precluded from wearing a cross at work, but not in favour of a second

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll