Abstract
We argue that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR has noticeably shifted over the past couple of decades. We call this shift from concentrating on beliefs to concentrating on actions or practices ‘the practical turn’. Before the shift, we contend, the courts tended to view actions, such as the exhibition or wearing of religious symbols, solely in the light of their function of expressing antecedent religious beliefs. The courts then asked themselves whether the actions really manifested the beliefs. Recently, we suggest, the courts have been happier to assume that the actions do manifest the beliefs, and then to weigh up the believer’s right to manifest faith in that way with the competing rights of others.
Keywords
ECtHR case-law practical turn Article 9 ECHR religious symbolism and beliefPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.See, for example, A v UK [also sub nom X v UK and Ross v UK] (1984) 6 EHRR 558 (Commission Decision). (App no 10295/82, 14 October 1983.)Google Scholar
- 2.Sahin v Turkey [GC] [2005] ECHR 819, (2007) 44 EHRR 5. (App no 44774/98, 10 November 2005.)Google Scholar
- 3.Arrowsmith v UK (1981) 3 EHRR 218 (Commission Decision). (App no 7050/75, 12 October 1978.)Google Scholar
- 4.Dahlab v Switzerland ECHR 2001-V. (App no 42393/98, 15 February 2001.)Google Scholar
- 5.Sahin 120 [78]. (App no 44774/98, 10 November 2005.)Google Scholar
- 6.Sahin v Turkey [2004/5] ECHR 299, (2005) 41 EHRR 8, 125–6 [71]. (App no 44774/98, 29 June 2004.)Google Scholar
- 7.Arrowsmith 228 [71].Google Scholar
- 8.Sahin [2004/5] 124–5 [66].Google Scholar
- 9.H. Gilbert (2006) ‘Redefining Manifestation of Belief in Leyla Sahin v Turkey’, European Human Rights Law Review, 3, pp. 308–9.Google Scholar
- 10.Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, p. 315.Google Scholar
- 11.Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, pp. 310–11.Google Scholar
- 12.Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, p. 318.Google Scholar
- 13.Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, p. 325.Google Scholar
- 14.Dogru v France [2008] ECHR 1579, (2009) 49 EHRR 8. (App no 27058/05, 4 December 2008.)Google Scholar
- 15.Dogru 193–4 [48].Google Scholar
- 16.Dogru 193 [47].Google Scholar
- 17.Dogru 190–1 [34].Google Scholar
- 18.Jakóbski v Poland [2010] ECHR 1974, (2012) 55 EHRR 8. (App no 18429/06, 7 December 2010.)Google Scholar
- 19.Jakóbski 238 [37].Google Scholar
- 20.Jakóbski 233 [7] (our emphasis).Google Scholar
- 21.Jakóbski 233 [10] (our emphasis).Google Scholar
- 22.Jakóbski 233 [11].Google Scholar
- 23.Jakóbski 234 [17] (our emphasis).Google Scholar
- 24.Jakóbski 239 [45].Google Scholar
- 25.Jakóbski 239–40 [45].Google Scholar
- 26.Jakóbski 239–40 [45], citing Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek [2000] ECHR 351, (2000) 9 BHRC 27 [73]–[4]. (App no 27417/95, 27 June 2000.)Google Scholar
- 27.Kovalkovs v Latvia [2012] ECHR 280, App no 35021/05 (ECtHR, 31 January 2012, unreported).Google Scholar
- 28.Kovalkovs [60].Google Scholar
- 29.Kovalkovs [60]–[1], citing Jakóbski 239–40 [45].Google Scholar
- 30.Moreover, the non-existence of the necessity test for manifestation is shown by the fact that when considering the justification for the restriction on Kovalkovs’s actions under 9(2), the Court states that the admitted interference with the manifestation of Kovalkovs’s freedom to pray, meditate, and read religious literature, did not ‘go against the very essence of the freedom to manifest one’s religion’, and that the incense sticks of which he had been deprived were ‘not essential for manifesting a prisoner’s religion’ (Kovalkovs [67]–[8]).Google Scholar
- 31.Gilbert ‘Redefining Manifestation’.Google Scholar
- 32.J. Martínez-Torrón (2012) ‘The (Un)protection of Individual Religious Identity in the Strasbourg Case-law’, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 1.2, pp. 12–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.R. Sandberg (2011a) Law and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 86–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Sessa v Italy, App no 28790/08 (ECtHR, 3 April 2012, unreported).Google Scholar
- 35.Eweida v UK [2013] ECHR 37, [2013] IRLR 231. (App nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10, and 36516/10, 15 January 2013.)Google Scholar
- 36.Sandberg, Law and Religion, p. 84.Google Scholar
- 37.Of course, there was, as has been noted, no similar advantage afforded to employers under Articles 8, 10, or 11.Google Scholar
- 38.The demise of the specific-situation rule may make no difference in practice within those members of the Council of Europe that are also members of the EU, since EU law already heavily regulates the practice of private employers.Google Scholar
- 39.Kovalkovs [60]–[1], citing Jakóbski 239–40 [45].Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Daniel J. Hill and Daniel Whistler 2013