A Marginal Victory for Freedom of Religion

Abstract

Initial reaction from interested parties to the much-anticipated decision of the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (a chamber made up of seven judges) in four cases consolidated as Eweida and Others v United Kingdom was mixed. Gregor Puppinck of the European Centre for Law and Justice declared: ‘This Section’s ruling gives a free licence to discriminate against Christians at the workplace.’ In contrast, Andrea Williams of Christian Concern emphasized that ‘In all the cases, the court underlined the importance of ‘‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’’.’ Makbool Javaid, the head of employment law at Simons Muirhead and Burton said: ‘Overall, the court has essentially upheld the approach to the way anti-religious discrimination law is applied in the UK courts in the way that it impacts on Convention rights.’ Professor Mark Hill opined, ‘There was not a lot to cheer about in Tuesday’s judgment at the European Court of Human Rights’ and that the Strasbourg judges had ‘got it wrong in the case of Ladele.’ The judges themselves were divided. A majority of five to two held that there had been a violation of freedom of religion when British Airways refused to permit employee Nadia Eweida to wear a cross outside her uniform. All seven agreed that the European Court of Human Rights was in no position to overturn the assessment of the hospital managers, upheld by the English courts, that Shirley Chaplin’s wearing of a cross posed a risk to health and safety in the hospital environment in which she worked as a nurse. A different majority of five to two held that there had been no violation of registrar Lillian Ladele’s freedom of religion when the London Borough of Islington insisted that all registrars should carry out civil partnership ceremonies. Judges Bratza (UK)