This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jan/15/ba-rights-cross-european-court

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
BA worker's rights were infringed by cross ban, European court rules BA worker's rights were infringed by cross ban, Strasbourg court rules
(about 1 hour later)
A British Airways check-in worker's right to express her religion was unfairly restricted when she was prevented from wearing a cross at work, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.A British Airways check-in worker's right to express her religion was unfairly restricted when she was prevented from wearing a cross at work, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.
In a landmark judgment defining the limits of religious freedom, Nadia Eweida, a practising Coptic Christian, was awarded €2,000 (£1,600) in compensation by the court in Strasbourg after it ruled against the United Kingdom. In a landmark judgment defining the limits of religious freedom, Nadia Eweida, 60, a practising Coptic Christian, was awarded €2,000 (£1,600) in compensation by the court in Strasbourg after it ruled against the United Kingdom.
In a majority judgment, the ECHR said: "The domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of the positive obligation under article 9 [of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion]." But three other Christian applicants – Lilian Ladele, a local authority registrar who also lives in London, Shirley Chaplin, 57, a nurse from Exeter, and Gary McFarlane, 51, a Bristol marriage counsellor – who also claimed they had suffered religious discrimination lost their appeals.
But three other Christian applicants – Lilian Ladele, a local authority registrar who also lives in London, Shirley Chaplin, a nurse from Exeter, and Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor – who also claimed they had suffered religious discrimination lost their appeals. Secular groups welcomed the four decisions, all contained in one judgment, on the grounds that religious liberties have not been allowed to trump other human rights.
The court did not criticise failures in UK law but said British courts had failed to balance the competing issues in the case adequately. On the one hand was Eweida's desire to manifest her religious belief; on the other was the employer's wish to project a certain corporate image. "While this aim was undoubtedly legitimate," the judgment said, "the domestic courts accorded it too much weight." In Eweida's case, the Strasbourg court did not criticise failures in UK law but said British courts had failed to balance competing interests in the case adequately.
On the one hand was Eweida's desire to manifest her religious belief; on the other was the employer's wish to project a certain corporate image. "While this aim was undoubtedly legitimate," the judgment said, "the domestic courts accorded it too much weight."
In its majority judgment, the ECHR declared: "The domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of the positive obligation under article 9 [of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion]."
The judges added: "The fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance."The judges added: "The fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance."
In Chaplin's case, which was superficially almost identical, the judges unanimously decided that the British courts had resolved competing rights more equitably. The prime minister, who intervened in the debate last summer and said he might change the law, welcomed the ruling. He wrote on Twitter: "Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld - ppl shouldn't suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs."
Chaplin had also stressed the importance for her to be allowed to bear witness to her Christian faith by wearing her cross visibly at work. In her case, however, the Strasbourg judges considered that the fact that hospital authorities had asked her to remove the cross for the protection of health and safety and to prevent infections spreading on a ward "was inherently more important". Hospital managers, the judges agreed, "were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety". But in Chaplin's case, which was superficially almost identical, the judges unanimously decided that the British courts had resolved competing rights more equitably.
The appeals by the other two claimants, Ladele and McFarlane, were dismissed on the grounds that the disciplinary proceedings against both of them were justified. Chaplin had also stressed the importance for her to be allowed to bear witness to her Christian faith by wearing a crucifix visibly around her neck at work. In her case, however, the Strasbourg judges considered that the fact that hospital authorities had asked her to remove it for the protection of health and safety and to prevent infections spreading on a ward "was inherently more important". Hospital managers, the judges agreed, "were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety".
Both Islington council and the charity Relate are bound by duties not to discriminate against their clients and therefore could not support staff who refused to work with homosexual couples. The appeals by the other two claimants, Ladele and McFarlane, were dismissed on the grounds that the disciplinary proceedings against them were justified. Both Islington council and the charity Relate were bound by duties not to discriminate against their clients and therefore could not support staff who refused to work with homosexual couples, the court said.
In a dissenting judgment, however, two ECHR judges, Nebojsa Vucinic and Vincent de Gaetano, said Ladele's right to freedom of conscience had been infringed. They said: "No one should be forced to act against one's conscience or be penalised for refusing to act against one's conscience." In a dissenting judgment, however, two ECHR judges, Nebojsa Vucinic and Vincent de Gaetano, said Ladele's right to freedom of conscience had been infringed. They explained: "We are of the view that once that a genuine and serious case of conscientious objection is established, the state is obliged to respect the individual's freedom of conscience...."
They also launched a fierce verbal attack on the culture prevalent in her local authority: "In the third applicant's case, however, a combination of backstabbing by her colleagues and the blinkered political correctness of the borough of Islington (which clearly favoured 'gay rights' over fundamental human rights) eventually led to her dismissal."They also launched a fierce verbal attack on the culture prevalent in her local authority: "In the third applicant's case, however, a combination of backstabbing by her colleagues and the blinkered political correctness of the borough of Islington (which clearly favoured 'gay rights' over fundamental human rights) eventually led to her dismissal."