CASE OF EWEIDA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Ladele v. United Kingdom (no. 51671/10), McFarlane v. United Kingdom (no. 36516/10), Eweida v. United Kingdom (no. 48420/10) & Chaplin v. United Kingdom (no. 59842/10) (Chamber hearing, 2012-09-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 59842/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-01-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0115JUD004842010
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 9;9-1;9-2;14;14+9;35;41
Judges: David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: AUGHTON AINSWORTH ; P. DIAMOND ; ORMERODS
Issue: Regulation 3 of the 2003 Regulations
Strasbourg case-law cited: Arrowsmith v. the United Kingdom, Commission’s report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports 19, p. 5;Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, ECHR 2011;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;C. v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 15 December 1983, DR 37, p. 142;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010;Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, §§ 73-74, ECHR 2000-VII;D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007-I;Fox v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61319/09, §§ 41-42, 20 March 2012;Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 78, ECHR 2000-XI;Jakóbski v. Poland, no. 18429/06, § 44, 7 December 2010;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IX;Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 31, Series A no. 260-A;Konttinen v. Finland, Commission’s decision of 3 December 1996, Decisions and Reports 87-A, p. 68;Kosteski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, no. 55170/00, § 39, 13 April 2006;Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany, no. 58911/00, § 80, 6 November 2008;Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI;Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1365, § 47;Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295, § 47;Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, §§ 58-61, ECHR 2011;Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-X;Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 1, ECHR 2003-II;Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, § 35, 10 May 2007;Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010;Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999 V;Skugar and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 40010/04, 3 December 2009;Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI;Stedman v. the United Kingdom, Commission’s decision of 9 April 1997;Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, ECHR 2000-IV;Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 323;Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, §§ 54-55, Series A no. 44;Zaoui v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 41615/98, 18 January 2001
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: TRUE