Swoboda wyznania w świetle artykułu 9 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności

• Authors: Justyna Celej

Title variants

EN

Freedom of religion according to Article 9 of ECHR

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06 case concerned the display of the crucifix in state school classrooms in Italy. In the judgement of 18 March 2011, Grand Chamber of the Court found no violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court further considered that no separate issue arose under Article 9. The principle of neutrality in the provision of public services, including that in the field of public education does not automatically imply secularism or the absence of any religious symbols. The case of Fernández Martínez v. Spain (application no. 56030/07) concerned the status of religious education teachers in state-run secondary education institutions and the respective roles of the state or its education authority, and the Church in the appointment and dismissal of such teachers. In the judgement of 15 May 2012 the Chamber of the Third Section found by six votes to one that the competent courts had struck a fair balance between various private interests and therefore that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The case Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy concerned the dismissal of a professor at the Catholic University of Milan. It is one of the religious universities in Europe, universities ideologically or culturally oriented, which applies “ideological” or “doctrinal” criteria of appointment and dismissal of teachers. The Court held that the applicant, Lombardi Vallauri, had not had effective access to court, and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 by six votes to one. In the Eweida and others case, the subject is whether, to what extent, and under what conditions an employer may prohibit the manifestation of faith in the workplace by private employees, civil servants and other state employees. The domestic authorities had failed sufficiently to protect Ms Eweida’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9. The Court concluded in her case that a fair balance had not been struck. Indeed, the fact that the company had amended the uniform code to allow for visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery showed that the earlier prohibition had not been of crucial importance. There had been no violation of Article 9 as concerned Ms Chaplin. The reason for asking Ms Chaplin to remove her cross, namely the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward, was inherently of much greater importance. The Court decided that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9, as concerning Ms Ladele, and no violation of Article 9 – taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 – as concerning Mr McFarlane. The Court considered that the policies of the applicants’ employers – to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way which did not discriminate against others – had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the Convention.

Keywords

EN

freedom of conscience; religion; autonomy of communities; religious symbols; manifestation of faith

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Opolski
• Journal: Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
• Year: 2014
• Volume: XII
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 23-40

Contributors

author

Justyna Celej

• Uniwersytet Warszawski

References

• Bourloyannis-Vrailas Christiane. 2011. “Introductory note to the European Court of Human Rights (GC): Lautsi & others v. Italy, March 18, 2011”. International Legal Materials, vol. 50.(5): 894–927.
• Gonzalez Gérard. 2013. “L’éléphant dans le magasin de porcelaine: Entrée remarquée des manifestations de la liberté européenne de religion sur le lieu de travail. (Cour eur. dr. h., Eweida e.a. c. Royaume-Uni, 15 janvier 2013)”. Revue rimestrielle des droits de l’homme 24e année (96): 975–991.
• Hill Henrietta. 2013. “Eweida v. United Kingdom: The right to manifest religion under article 9 of the ECHR: Case analysis”. European Human Rights Law Review 2: 187–193.
• Schlütter Birgit. 2011. “Crucifixes in Italian classrooms: Lautsi v. Italy”. European Human Rights Law Review 6: 715–721.
• Murdoch Jim. 2012. La protection du droit à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion par la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.
• Nowicki Marek Antoni. 2013. Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka. Wybór orzeczeń. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Nowicki Marek Antoni. Decyzja o nieprzedłużeniu umowy z żonatym księdzem, ojcem pięciorga dzieci, na prowadzenie lekcji religii i moralności katolickiej, po opublikowaniu artykułu ujawniającego jego członkostwo w „Ruchu na rzecz Fakultatywnego Celibatu” Fernández Martínez przeciwko Hiszpanii (orzeczenie – 15 maja 2012 r., Izba (Sekcja III), skarga nr 56030/07). Dostępność 1 listopada 2013. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"]}.
• Nowicki Marek Antoni. Obecność krucyfiksu w klasie w szkole państwowej. Lautsi przeciwko Włochom. Orzeczenie 18 marca 2011 r., Wielka Izba, skarga nr 30814/06. Dostępność 1 listopada 2013. http://www.hfhr.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/omowienie_orzeczenia_lautsi_przeciwko_wlochom.pdf.
• Nowicki Marek Antoni. Ograniczenia noszenia w pracy w sposób widoczny krzyży chrześcijańskich; zwolnienie pracowników z pracy z powodu odmowy wykonania niektórych obowiązków, które mogłyby sugerować, iż oznaczają wspieranie homoseksualizmu. Eweida i inni przeciwko Wielkiej Brytanii (wyrok – 15 stycznia 2013 r., Izba (Sekcja IV), skargi nr 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 i 36516/10). Dostępność 1 listopada 2013. http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Omowienie_orzeczenia_Eweida_i_inni_przeciwko_Wielkiej-Brytanii.pdf.