 |
| 21-August-2026 |
There is a parallel with Atheist Ireland’s campaigns to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief in Irish schools.
The case was GK and AS versus Switzerland, and the ruling was on 16 July. It strengthens the impact of an older related case, W versus UK in 1993, which was a decision of the old European Commission of Human Rights, not a judgment of the present Court.
What was the issue in the current case? GK was held in pre-trial detention for almost a year. A.S. was involuntarily detained in a psychiatric hospital. Both repeatedly asked for fully vegan, nutritionally sufficient meals.
The authorities tried to accommodate them, but did not consistently give them vegan food. And neither institution made a formal decision that they could appeal.
Article 9 of the European Convention protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including qualifying religious and nonreligious beliefs.
The test of whether a nonreligious conviction can qualify as a protected belief includes whether it reaches a sufficient level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance. The next test is whether the behaviour in question has a sufficiently close connection with the belief.
What did the European Court conclude? It found that the applicants’ ethical veganism met both these thresholds. The belief was protected, and it was not merely a dietary preference. It flowed directly from their moral opposition to exploiting or harming animals.
And, because GK and AS were dependent on the State for food, the authorities had a positive obligation to deal properly with their request for vegan food. This does not mean that they had to comply with the request, but they had to reasonably balance the right with practical considerations.
The authorities tried to evade that by saying they had not made a decision to appeal against, but the court found that argument too formalistic. Indeed, the court found that, because GK and AS could not appeal the issue domestically, their right to an effective remedy, under Article 13, was also breached.
The judgment reinforces two principles
This judgment reinforces two important human rights principles. One is that that religious and nonreligious beliefs have the same legal protection under human rights law. If someone refuses to eat pork because of their religious beliefs, and someone else refuses to eat any animal products because of their ethical veganism, the authorities must respect both underlying beliefs equally.
Another is the difference between the State’s negative duties (to not unjustifiably interfere) and positive duties (to take reasonable action). It is not always enough for the State simply to allow someone to hold a belief. Sometimes it must take reasonable steps for them to exercise their rights effectively.
In this case, the applicants were deprived of their liberty and dependent upon the State for food. The Court found the authorities had a positive obligation to properly consider their requests and balance their beliefs against practical considerations.
There is a parallel here with Atheist Ireland’s campaign to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief in Irish schools.
In the Louise O’Keeffe child protection case, the Irish State argued her parents had chosen to send her to the school. But the European Court found she had no realistic and acceptable alternative to attending her local school, and few parents had the resources for home schooling or fee-paying schools. She also won on the issue of a lack of an effective remedy.
That case concerned the State’s positive duty to protect children from abuse, rather than freedom of religion or belief. But the underlying issue of compulsory schooling is also relevant to belief rights. The State cannot treat attendance at school as an entirely voluntary choice.
Also, the Convention separately requires the State, in exercising its functions in education, to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions.
This does not mean that children (through their parents) can decline to attend any subject inconsistent with their beliefs. The State can make subjects compulsory if the information is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, and the State does not pursue indoctrination.
But broadly speaking the two principles are similar. The more the State controls access to an activity, and the more it removes alternatives, the stronger its duty to take reasonable account of religious or philosophical beliefs.
Atheist Ireland continues to campaign for the right to respect for our philosophical beliefs in the education system.
Keep up with Atheist Ireland.
No comments