(Grand Chamber) Elected MPs complained that they were not allowed to take their seats unless they swore an oath in religious form.
Held: This requirement was not compatible with article 9. ‘That freedom [Article 9 freedom of thought] entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion.’
[2000] 30 EHRR 208, [1999] ECHR 7, 24645/94
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 9
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Buscarini And Others v San Marino ECHR 7-Apr-1997
Hudoc Elected MPs complained that they were not allowed to take their seats unless they swore an oath in religious form. . .
Cited by:
Cited – National Secular Society and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bideford Town Council Admn 10-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the placing of a prayer on the agenda of the respondent’s meetings.
Held: The claim succeeded. The placing of such elements on the Agenda was outside the powers given to the Council, and the action was ultra vires: . .
Cited – RT (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimants said it would be wrong to return them to Zimbabwe where they would be able to evade persecution only by pretending to a loyalty to, and enthusiasm for the current regime.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeals failed. The HJ . .
Cited – Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others SC 10-Oct-2018
The court considered whether a power of appeal to the existed.
Held: A power did exist under FETO, and the CANI having mistakenly excluded a power to appeal the Supreme Court could nevertheless hear it. Both appeals were allowed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.451408 br>