Article 9 ECHR CASES

In English law, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right has two parts. The forum internum (the inner freedom to hold beliefs) is absolute and cannot be limited. The forum externum (the freedom to manifest beliefs in worship, teaching, practice and observance) may be restricted, but only if the restriction is lawful, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society.

Definition and Principles

Article 9 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, and serious philosophical convictions. The belief must reach a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. Manifestation covers individual and collective aspects, both in private and in public. Restrictions on manifestation must be prescribed by law, pursue one of the listed aims (public safety, public order, health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others) and be proportionate. The state must remain neutral and impartial between competing beliefs, and may have positive obligations to secure pluralism and tolerance.

Scope and Structure

Forum internum (absolute): freedom to hold or change beliefs and convictions. The state may not coerce a person to adopt or renounce a belief.

Forum externum (qualified): freedom to manifest beliefs by worship, teaching, practice and observance. Any limitation is scrutinised for legality, legitimacy of aim and proportionality. The analysis is context-sensitive, and states enjoy a margin of appreciation, but reasons must be evidence-based.

Common Contexts and Examples

• Dress and symbols: workplace or school rules on clothing and jewellery may interfere with manifestation. Lawfulness turns on clear rules, a real need (for example, safety or neutrality), and proportionate impact.
• Time, diet and rituals: requests for prayer breaks, dietary accommodation, or observance of holy days require a balance between organisational needs and the individual’s rights.
• Speech and proselytising: sharing beliefs engages Article 9 and Article 10. Restrictions must be carefully justified, especially in public spaces or where there is no coercion or harassment.
• Education: curriculum and school policies must respect parents’ convictions and pupils’ rights, assessed with Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol 1 in mind.
• Professional ethics and conscientious objection: where duties conflict with conscience, the question is whether any limitation is proportionate and whether workable accommodations exist within the legal and regulatory framework.

Relationship with Other Rights

Article 9 often overlaps with Article 10 (expression) and Article 11 (assembly and association). Privacy interests under Article 8 may also be engaged. The court conducts a structured proportionality assessment, weighing the contribution to pluralism and democratic life against the impact on others and on legitimate institutional aims.

Legal Implications

• Public authorities: must act compatibly with Article 9 and justify interferences with evidence and careful reasoning. Blanket rules are vulnerable if narrower, equally effective measures were available.
• Private bodies: courts may give effect to Article 9 indirectly through common law and statute; positive obligations can require the state to secure effective respect for the right in private settings.
• Thresholds and proof: claimants should identify the belief, the act of manifestation, the interference, and why any restriction is not proportionate. Decision-makers should document aims, alternatives considered, and impact assessments.

Remedies and Procedure

Challenges typically proceed by judicial review against public bodies, or by claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. Depending on the setting, Equality Act 2010 claims (for example, indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief) may run alongside human-rights arguments. Remedies include quashing or mandatory orders, declarations, and damages where necessary for just satisfaction.

Practical Importance

When advising, start with clarity: identify whether the conduct is a manifestation, set out the policy or decision that interferes, and test each limb of the justification analysis. Explore reasonable accommodations that would meet the legitimate aim with a lesser impact on belief. Keep a careful evidential record: proportionality turns on concrete facts, not generalities.

See also: Article 10 (freedom of expression); Article 11 (assembly and association); Article 8 (privacy); Equality Act 2010; Judicial review; Proportionality; Education rights (A2P1).