limits on freedom, religion, freedom of expression
In terms of non-guaranteed rights by the Rome Convention, it is first clear that "the term" practice "as used in Article 9§1 does not cover any act which is motivated or influenced by a religion or a belief. When the actions of individuals do not actually express the belief concerned they can not be considered as such, protected by Article 9. This is what emerges from the Arrowsmith 1977. But this case is now constant and has also been reiterated most recently in the case of Pichon and Sajous v / France 2001 first. In this case, the applicants complained that they had been sentenced by national courts for refusing to sell birth control pills and this, according to them, contrary to their religious freedom. The application was declared inadmissible, the European Court holding that "Article 9 of the Convention does not always guarantee the right to behave in the public domain in a manner governed by a belief".
The Court, in particular, believes that from the time the sale is legal and occurs on medical prescription only and must in pharmacies, the applicants can not give precedence to others or impose their religious beliefs to justify the refusal to sell these products, "said the event convictions can be exercised in many ways outside the professional sphere". For the Court, so there is not even interference with freedom of religion. The other case, very painful and very media, is the Pretty v / United Kingdom of 29 April 2002. Again, the applicant alleged that the authorities' refusal to give an undertaking not to prosecute her husband for the help it had to carry him to make a "assisted suicide" was a violation of his freedom of thought, the Court responded that "all opinions or convictions are not within the scope of the Article 9§1 ". It also recalls that the term "practice" does not include any act motivated or influenced by a religion or belief.
[...] This concerns the right to hold certain posts, whether secular or ecclesiastical functions, and the right to certain studies, the right of foreigners to enter and remain in the country or has not the right to be expelled. The limits to the guarantee of freedom of religion: the concept of 'necessary in a democratic society This is Article playing. It stipulates that "the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, public safety, protection order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. [...]
[...] The limits on freedom of religion holding limits to freedom of expression Freedom of religion, in its expression is limited for various reasons. It will therefore be studied here what those limits are outside the specific case of the manifestation of religion in public services in general and in particular the teaching service. Unsecured rights: term problem of "practical" religion or belief and the rights outside the scope of Article 9. It is in these cases of certain rights claimed are not guaranteed by the Convention, or that they are not guaranteed by Article whether while being guaranteed by another Article of the European Convention human rights but are also limited, or that certain rights are nowhere guaranteed by the Convention. [...]
[...] The Larissis and others v / Greece 1998, while in the continuation of the Kokkinakis judgment, precision and evolution of it. In this case, the Greek army officers incited soldiers to join their church while he was under their authority. The officers did the same with civilians .In this case, the Court refers to "improper proselytism" and believes that this form of proselytism consists of undue pressure on the speaker or when it does not benefit from benefits or property that are offered to him on the condition to join the religious group concerned. [...]
[...] The Kokkinakis judgment of 25 May 1993 is the founder stop for proselytism, the Strasbourg Court considered that the religious beliefs assume "the testimony in word and deed." In this case, it was, overall, the criminalization and crime prevention in Greece and improper proselytism. Now, if the Court considers any right under freedom of religion, proselytizing, its differentiation of its two forms is the least we can say questionable. Indeed, the European Court accepted that the freedom to manifest religion has "in principle" the right to try to convince his neighbor. [...]
[...] Anyway, it is settled case-law: a decision of 11 January 2005, Suku Phull c / France recalls that restrictions in the exercise of freedom of religion can be justified by the protection typically of the order, security (in this case, it was the obligation for a Sikh to remove his turban in the sandbox of an airline boarding area). The limit may also keep health reasons: protection against accidents, against unhealthy or against epidemics. Recently, the French administrative court has applied this jurisprudence at the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses in the judgment of the State Council visited Ms. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
