Context Matters: Michel Rosenfeld on Rethinking His Initial Support of the ECtHR Judgement in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey

In Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (2004), the European Court of Human Rights sided with the Turkish government in prohibiting a medical student to wear the hijab on public university property. Michel Rosenfeld (Benjamine N. Cardozo School of Law) explains why he changed his opinion regarding the Court’s Leyla Şahin judgment and why he believes that, had it been decided in 2026, the case would have required a different approach.

(more…)

Continue Reading Context Matters: Michel Rosenfeld on Rethinking His Initial Support of the ECtHR Judgement in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey

Correct Bits that Do Not Fit: Elizabeth A. Clark on the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s Unsettling Judgement in Lautsi v. Italy

In Lautsi v. Italy (2011), the European Court of Human Rights considered whether a crucifix displayed in an Italian public-school classroom violated a non-Catholic student’s right to religious freedom. While a chamber of the Court decided in favor of the student, the Grand Chamber later sided with the Italian government and found the crucifix to be a passive symbol that did not infringe the student’s and his parents’ rights. Elizabeth A. Clark explains how her experience as a member of a religious minority group complicates her views of the Grand Chamber’s Lautsi judgment.

(more…)

Continue Reading Correct Bits that Do Not Fit: Elizabeth A. Clark on the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s Unsettling Judgement in Lautsi v. Italy

Clashing Vulnerabilities? Revisiting Executief van de Moslims in België and Others v. Belgium with Vulnerability Theory

Jelle Creemers is a professor and the academic dean of religious studies at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit (ETF) in Leuven, Belgium.

The final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Executief van de Moslims in België and Others v. Belgium (13 February 2024) could not have been more clear. The seven judges unanimously held that the Flemish and Walloon decrees banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning did not constitute a violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion or belief) or of Article 14 (nondiscrimination), read in conjunction with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This decision ended the appeal of several Belgian Muslim and Jewish organizations and individuals seeking a legal exemption that would allow them to slaughter animals according to their religious convictions. The ECtHR judgment prompted debate among, and critical feedback from, European FoRB experts.

(more…)

Continue Reading Clashing Vulnerabilities? Revisiting Executief van de Moslims in België and Others v. Belgium with Vulnerability Theory