Article 9 Of The European Convention On Human Rights

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a cornerstone of the Convention, guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right, while seemingly straightforward, has been the subject of extensive interpretation and litigation before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), leading to a rich body of case law that clarifies its scope and limitations. This article delves into the intricacies of Article 9, exploring its provisions, limitations, and the key principles established through landmark judgments.

Introduction: The Right to Manifest One's Religion or Beliefs

Article 9, in its entirety, states:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

This seemingly simple article encapsulates a complex interplay between individual liberty and societal needs. The first paragraph establishes the absolute right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The crucial difference lies in the distinction between the internal dimension (thought, conscience, and belief) and the external dimension (manifestation). The internal aspect is considered inviolable; the state cannot compel belief or disbelief. However, the manifestation of one's beliefs is subject to limitations, as outlined in the second paragraph.

Understanding the Scope of Article 9

The right encompasses several key aspects:

• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion: This covers a broad spectrum of beliefs, including religious beliefs, philosophical convictions, and even atheistic or agnostic views. The ECtHR has consistently emphasized the wide-ranging nature of this right, encompassing both theistic and non-theistic beliefs. The key is the sincerity of the belief, not its truth or acceptance by others.

• Freedom to change one's religion or belief: Individuals are free to convert to a different faith, abandon a previous belief system, or become an atheist or agnostic without fear of state interference. This freedom is intrinsic to the overall right and underscores the voluntary nature of religious adherence.

• Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief: This is where the limitations come into play. Manifestation encompasses various acts, including worship, teaching, practice, and observance. This can involve public displays of religious symbols, participation in religious ceremonies, proselytizing, and establishing religious institutions.

Limitations on the Manifestation of Religion or Belief

The second paragraph of Article 9 introduces the crucial caveat that the freedom to manifest one't religion or belief is not absolute. Limitations are permissible, but only if they meet the following strict criteria:

• Prescribed by law: The limitation must have a basis in national law, which must be accessible and foreseeable. This prevents arbitrary restrictions and ensures that individuals are aware of the boundaries of their freedom.

• Necessary in a democratic society: This is the most demanding criterion. The ECtHR employs a proportionality test, evaluating whether the limitation is genuinely necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and whether it strikes a fair balance between the individual's right and the interests of society. The state bears the burden of proving the necessity of the limitation.

• In the interests of: The limitation must pursue one of the following legitimate aims:

  • Public safety: This encompasses threats to national security, such as terrorist activities carried out in the name of religion.
  • Public order: This relates to the maintenance of social peace and order, preventing disruptions or violence stemming from religious practices.
  • Health: This covers situations where religious practices pose a risk to public health, such as refusing medical treatment based on religious grounds.
  • Morals: This is a more contested area, requiring careful consideration of evolving societal norms and the potential for restrictions to infringe on freedom of religion disproportionately.
  • The protection of the rights and freedoms of others: This encompasses situations where religious practices infringe on the rights of others, such as discrimination, hate speech, or the violation of privacy.

Key Case Law and Principles

The ECtHR's jurisprudence on Article 9 is extensive and provides valuable insight into its interpretation. Some landmark cases include:

• Sahin v. Turkey (2005): This case concerned a Turkish student who was prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf to university. The Court found that the ban was a violation of Article 9, holding that the state failed to demonstrate a pressing social need for the restriction. This case highlighted the importance of proportionality and the need for a genuine and objective justification for limitations on religious manifestation.

• Lautsi v. Italy (2011): This case dealt with the display of crucifixes in Italian state schools. The Court found that the display, while not inherently coercive, could create pressure on students to conform to a particular religion. This case highlighted the complexities of religious symbols in public spaces and the need to balance religious freedom with the principle of neutrality of the state.

• Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (2005): This case, often cited alongside Sahin v. Turkey, highlighted the tension between religious freedom and the secular principles of the state. The court found that whilst wearing a headscarf was an aspect of religious expression protected by Article 9, the State's aim of ensuring neutrality in public institutions was a legitimate aim. However, the specific restriction was ultimately found to be disproportionate and violated Article 9.

• Eweida v. United Kingdom (2013): This case involved a British Airways employee who was disciplined for wearing a cross at work. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 9, emphasizing the importance of respecting religious expression in the workplace, provided it did not unduly interfere with the employer's legitimate operational needs.

These cases, among many others, demonstrate the nuanced approach the ECtHR takes when balancing religious freedom with other societal interests. The Court consistently emphasizes the importance of proportionality, the need for clear legal justification, and the avoidance of arbitrary or discriminatory measures.

Article 9 and Other Human Rights

Article 9 interacts with other provisions of the ECHR, often creating complex legal scenarios. For instance:

• Article 10 (Freedom of expression): Religious expression is often intertwined with freedom of expression. Restrictions on religious speech must meet the same stringent criteria as limitations on the manifestation of religion.

• Article 11 (Freedom of assembly and association): Religious groups have the right to assemble and associate freely, provided their activities do not violate other provisions of the Convention.

• Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination): Article 9 protections cannot be applied selectively or discriminatorily. Any limitations on religious freedom must be applied equally to all religious groups.

• Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life): Religious practices affecting private and family life may also fall under the protection of Article 8.

Conclusion: A Dynamic and Evolving Right

Article 9 of the ECHR represents a significant commitment to protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. However, its practical application is complex, requiring careful balancing of individual rights and societal interests. The ECtHR's jurisprudence plays a vital role in shaping the understanding and application of this fundamental right. The cases discussed herein exemplify the ongoing process of interpretation and adaptation, reflecting the evolving societal norms and the continuous need to protect religious freedom within a framework that respects democracy and the rights of others. The right is dynamic, continuously being shaped by societal changes and the ongoing dialogue between individual rights and collective needs within a democratic society. Future interpretations will undoubtedly continue to refine our understanding of this critical aspect of human rights protection.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Does Article 9 protect only traditional religions? No, Article 9 protects all beliefs, including new religious movements, philosophical convictions, and even atheism or agnosticism. The key is the sincerity of the belief.

• Can the state regulate religious practices? Yes, the state can regulate religious practices, but only if the regulations are prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, and aimed at protecting one of the legitimate aims outlined in Article 9(2).

• What happens if a religious practice conflicts with another human right? The ECtHR will weigh the competing rights and apply a proportionality test to determine whether the restriction on one right is justified in light of the protection of another.

• Can I be punished for expressing my religious beliefs? You can be punished for expressing your religious beliefs only if your expression violates the limitations outlined in Article 9(2) and the restriction is proportional.

• Is Article 9 absolute? No, Article 9 is not absolute. The freedom to manifest one's religion or belief is subject to limitations provided they meet the strict criteria set out in the second paragraph.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, due to the complexity of the subject, it is advisable to consult legal professionals for specific legal advice. This information should be viewed as educational and informative only, not as legal counsel.