European Court of Human Rights supports Nadia Eweida

European Court of Human Rights ruled that Mrs. Nadia Eweida, who work for British Airlines, has the right to wear her cross visibly at work.

 

It's worth mentioning that Eweida has sued British Airlines for preventing her from wearing her cross visibly at work, and got 32000 Euro compensation. 

 

Decision of the Court

 

The Court considered that there had been an interference with both women’s right to manifest their religion in that they had been unable to wear their crosses visibly at work.

As concerned Ms Eweida, who worked for a private company and could not therefore attribute that interference directly to the State, the Court had to examine whether her right freely to manifest her religion had been sufficiently protected within the domestic legal order. In common with a large number of contracting States, the UK does not have legal provisions specifically regulating the wearing of religious clothing and symbols in the workplace. However, it was clear that the legitimacy of BA’s uniform code and the proportionality of the measures it had taken had been examined in detail by the domestic courts. Therefore, the lack of explicit protection in the UK law in this area did not, in itself, mean that Ms Eweida’s right to manifest her religion had been breached.

 

Nonetheless, the Court concluded in her case that a fair balance had not been struck between, on the one side of the scales, her desire to manifest her religious belief and to be able to communicate that belief to others, and on the other side of the scales, her employer’s wish to project a certain corporate image (no matter how legitimate that aim might be). Indeed, other BA employees had previously been authorised to wear items of religious clothing such as turbans and hijabs without any negative impact on BA’s brand or image. Moreover, 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. The domestic authorities had therefore failed sufficiently to protect Ms Eweida’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9. It did not consider it necessary to examine separately her complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9.