Wearing religious symbols at work in the ECtHR’s judgments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/TSP-W.2020.007Parole chiave
freedom of religion, religious symbols, clothes and jewellery as religious symbols, employment conditions, Strasbourg case-lawAbstract
Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and religion are essential human rights which are protected, among others, by the ECHR. The number of the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions on wearing religious symbols (in a form of a Christian cross, a Muslim veil or a headscarf) at work remains small. Nevertheless, some interpretation guidelines can be identified in particular on how to ensure that an interference with Article 9 of the 1950 Convention has to be proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society”. Owing to a lack of European-wide consensus on states’ approach to religion, a state exercises a wide margin of appreciation. Nevertheless, a state always has to take into account rights of the others, in particular those who are dependent on (e.g. patience at hospital) employees or are prone to an impact of employees (e.g. pupils and students). Thus, dress codes confirming a secular nature and religious neutrality of a State not always violates Article 9 of the ECHR. Rules apply mainly to public bodies, but a state liability may also be found to private company’s cases. Details of each employment contract and of the employee’s conduct have to be always analysed. The dress code rules applied to man and women and irrespective to their religion, so the Court has not declared it to be discriminatory because of sex or religion of employees.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Balcerzak, M., Zagadnienie precedensu w prawie międzynarodowym praw człowieka, Toruń 2008.
Brittain S., The Relationship Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: an Originalist Analysis, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2015, Vol. 11, No. 03.
Búrca G. de, After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator?, „Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 2013, Vol. 20, No. 2.
Búrca G. de, The Evolution of EU Human Rights Law [in:] The evolution of EU law, P. P. Craig, G. de Búrca (eds.), Oxford; New York 2011.
Dörre-Nowak D., Ochrona godności i innych dóbr osobistych pracownika, Warszawa 2005.
Garlicki, L., Wartości lokalne a orzecznictwo ponadnarodowe - „kulturowy margines oceny” w orzecznictwie strasburskim?, „Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2008, No. 4.
Gronowska B., Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka. W poszukiwaniu efektywnej ochrony praw jednostki, Toruń 2011.
Gronowska B., Gloss on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 October 2018 in case E.S. v. Austria, appl. No. 38450/12, „Ius Novum” 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2.
Gronowska B., Maliszewska-Nienartowicz J., The EU Charter on Fundamental Rights – do we really need it? [in:] European Union at the Crossroads: the Need for Constitutional and Economic Changes, Toruń 2007.
Gronowska, B., Sadowski, P., Treatment of Prisoners – International and Polish Perspective, Toruń 2019.
Howard E., Islamic headscarves and the CJEU: Achbita and Bougnaoui, „Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 2017, Vol. 24, No. 3.
Janicka D., Jurysdykcja państwa niemieckiego w warunkach wielokulturowego społeczeństwa – kilka wybranych przykładów ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem orzecznictwa administracyjnego i konstytucyjnego, „Studia Iuridica Toruniensia” 2015, Vol. 15.
Jasudowicz T., Między sumieniem a orzecznictwem Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka, „Polski Rocznik Praw Człowieka i Prawa Humanitarnego” 2018, Vol. 8.
Londras F. de, Dzehtsiarou K., Managing Judicial Innovation in the European Court of Human Rights, „Human Rights Law Review” 2015, Vol. 15, No. 3.
Mowbray A., The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights, „Human Rights Law Review” 2005, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Muir E., The Fundamental Rights Implications of EU Legislation: Some Constitutional Challenges, „Common Market Law Review” 2014, Vol. 51, No. 1.
Nowicki M.A., Wokół Konwencji Europejskiej. Komentarz do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, Warszawa 2017.
Pavlidou, K., Religious Expression in the Workplace Before the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union: Discriminating Against a Fundamental Right? [in:] Applying Non-Discrimination Law, Goulas, D., Kofinis, St. (eds.), Thessaloniki 2018.
Sadowski P., A Safe Harbour or a Sinking Ship? On the Fundamental Rights in Recent Judgments of the CJEU on Asylum., „European Journal of Legal Studies” 2019, Vol. 11, No. 2.
Sadowski, P., Wspólny Europejski System Azylowy – historia, stan obecny i perspektywy rozwoju, Toruń 2019.
Skwarzyński M., Protecting conscientious objection as the “hard core” of human dignity, „Ius Novum” 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2.
The European Court of Human Rights and the freedom of religion or belief: the 25 years since Kokkinakis, J. Temperman, T.J. Gunn, M.D. Evans (eds.), Series „Studies in religion, secular beliefs and human rights”, volume 13, Leiden; Boston 2019.
Zieliński, T., Rozdział I. Problemy części ogólnej prawa pracy [in:] Prawo pracy RP w obliczu przemian, M. Matey-Tyrowicz, T. Zielinski (eds.), Warszawa 2006.
Żołyński, J., Prawo pracy – prawo prywatne czy prawo publiczne. Rozważania na tle charakteru umowy o pracę, „Studia z zakresu prawa pracy i polityki społecznej” 2016, No. 23.
Downloads
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2021 Studi Polacco-Italiani di Toruń

Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 1050
Number of citations: 0