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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
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.)
Sahin v Turkey [GC] [2005] ECHR 819, (2007) 44 EHRR 5. (App no 44774/98, 10 November 2005.)
Arrowsmith v UK (1981) 3 EHRR 218 (Commission Decision). (App no 7050/75, 12 October 1978.)
Dahlab v Switzerland ECHR 2001-V. (App no 42393/98, 15 February 2001.)
Sahin 120 [78]. (App no 44774/98, 10 November 2005.)
Sahin v Turkey [2004/5] ECHR 299, (2005) 41 EHRR 8, 125–6 [71]. (App no 44774/98, 29 June 2004.)
Arrowsmith 228 [71].
Sahin [2004/5] 124–5 [66].
H. Gilbert (2006) ‘Redefining Manifestation of Belief in Leyla Sahin v Turkey’, European Human Rights Law Review, 3, pp. 308–9.
Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, p. 315.
Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, pp. 310–11.
Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, p. 318.
Gilbert, ‘Redefining Manifestation’, p. 325.
Dogru v France [2008] ECHR 1579, (2009) 49 EHRR 8. (App no 27058/05, 4 December 2008.)
Dogru 193–4 [48].
Dogru 193 [47].
Dogru 190–1 [34].
Jakóbski v Poland [2010] ECHR 1974, (2012) 55 EHRR 8. (App no 18429/06, 7 December 2010.)
Jakóbski 238 [37].
Jakóbski 233 [7] (our emphasis).
Jakóbski 233 [10] (our emphasis).
Jakóbski 233 [11].
Jakóbski 234 [17] (our emphasis).
Jakóbski 239 [45].
Jakóbski 239–40 [45].
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.)
Kovalkovs v Latvia [2012] ECHR 280, App no 35021/05 (ECtHR, 31 January 2012, unreported).
Kovalkovs [60].
Kovalkovs [60]–[1], citing Jakóbski 239–40 [45].
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]).
Gilbert ‘Redefining Manifestation’.
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.
R. Sandberg (2011a) Law and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 86–7.
Sessa v Italy, App no 28790/08 (ECtHR, 3 April 2012, unreported).
Eweida v UK [2013] ECHR 37, [2013] IRLR 231. (App nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10, and 36516/10, 15 January 2013.)
Sandberg, Law and Religion, p. 84.
Of course, there was, as has been noted, no similar advantage afforded to employers under Articles 8, 10, or 11.
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.
Kovalkovs [60]–[1], citing Jakóbski 239–40 [45].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Daniel J. Hill and Daniel Whistler
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hill, D.J., Whistler, D. (2013). The Practical Turn. In: The Right to Wear Religious Symbols. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137354174_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137354174_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-46990-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-35417-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)