Siebenhaar v. Germany, No. 18136/02, ECtHR (Fifth Section), 3 February 2011

Teacher of a kindergarten run by a Protestant parish. Dismissal justified by the different religion professed by the worker. Non-violation of Article 9 of the ECHR.

 

Art. 9 ECHR
Art. 11 ECHR

1. Although many provisions of the ECHR are essentially intended to protect the individual against any arbitrary interference by public authorities, States do also have positive obligations inherent in the effective respect of the rights and the freedoms of the Convention. These obligations may require, in the case of Article 9, the adoption of measures aimed at respecting freedom of religion also in relations between individuals. If the boundary between the positive and negative obligations of the State, with respect to Article 9, does not lend itself to a precise definition, the applicable principles are in any case comparable. In particular, in both cases, one must take into account the right balance to be achieved between the general interest and the interests of the individual, while the State enjoys, in any case, a margin of appreciation.

2. The margin of appreciation recognized to the State is wider when there is no consensus among the Contracting Parties on the relative importance of the interests at stake or on the best way to protect them. In general, the margin is wide even when the State must find a balance between competing private and public interests or different rights protected by the Convention.

3. Religious communities traditionally and universally exist in the form of organized structures and, when the organization of one of these communities is concerned, Article 9 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of Article 11, which protects the life of the community from any unjustified interference by the State. Indeed, the autonomy of such communities, essential for pluralism in a democratic society, is at the heart of the protection afforded by Article 9.
(The case revolves around the dismissal suffered by the teacher of a kindergarten run by a Protestant parish, following the discovery, by the employer, of her Catholic faith. The State judges argued that the measure was legitimate. The Court believes that their motivations show satisfyingly that the obligation of loyalty imposed on the worker with respect to the institution's ethos was necessary to preserve its credibility. Article 9 of the Convention could not therefore have required the State to offer the applicant superior protection)