Background
G.K., the first applicant, was held in pre-trial detention at Champ-Dollon Prison in Geneva from November 2018 to October 2019, charged with property damage committed in support of an anti-speciesism movement. During his detention, he requested a fully vegan diet in accordance with his ethical beliefs but received only vegetarian meals that frequently contained animal products such as cheese, eggs, and dairy-based sauces. A.S., the second applicant, was involuntarily hospitalized at a psychiatric facility from February to April 2021 and similarly requested a fully vegan diet. Both applicants made repeated formal requests to prison and hospital authorities seeking accommodation of their vegan beliefs.
When the applicants pursued administrative remedies, Swiss courts dismissed their cases on technical grounds. The courts ruled that the authorities’ replies did not constitute formal “decisions” capable of being appealed, and therefore the applicants lacked standing to challenge them. The Federal Supreme Court held that letters from prison and hospital administrators were merely informative communications that did not create binding legal relationships subject to judicial review. Both applicants exhausted Swiss remedies without obtaining substantive examination of their claims that they had a right to vegan diets compatible with their ethical beliefs.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court held that veganism, as an ethical belief system based on opposition to animal exploitation, qualifies as a protected belief under Article 9 of the Convention, even though it is non-religious. The Court found that the applicants’ vegan beliefs met the required level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance necessary to fall within Article 9’s scope, and that there was a sufficiently close connection between their beliefs and their practice of abstaining from animal-derived food.
The Court further held that Article 9 imposes positive obligations on state authorities to provide substantive examination of requests to accommodate ethical beliefs in institutional settings. Where persons deprived of liberty request accommodation based on genuine ethical beliefs, authorities must address such requests on the merits rather than dismiss them on purely procedural grounds. The Swiss authorities’ excessively formalistic approach—refusing to issue formal decisions that could be appealed—violated this positive obligation. This procedural obstruction meant the applicants had no effective remedy under Article 13, as the technicality of what constitutes a “decision” rendered it impossible for them to obtain judicial review of their substantive claims.
The Court concluded that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between accommodating the applicants’ protected ethical beliefs and the legitimate operational interests of the prison and hospital. While the state is not required to provide ideal conditions, it must engage in good-faith dialogue and substantive examination of reasonable accommodation requests from persons in custody or involuntary care.
Key Takeaways
- Veganism qualifies as a non-religious belief protected under Article 9 of the Convention when based on sincere ethical principles about animal exploitation.
- Article 9 imposes positive obligations requiring authorities to provide substantive consideration of accommodation requests for ethical beliefs, not merely procedural responses.
- Procedural formalism that prevents judicial review of substantive rights claims violates Article 13’s guarantee of an effective remedy.
- Authorities in institutional settings (prisons, psychiatric hospitals) must engage meaningfully with accommodation requests rather than treating informative communications as final administrative acts.
- Council of Europe member states already recognize vegan and vegetarian diets as legitimate accommodations; Swiss law’s formalistic barriers were inconsistent with comparative practice.
Why It Matters
This judgment marks a significant development in European human rights law by recognizing veganism as a protected ethical belief system entitled to accommodation under Article 9, placing it on equal footing with religious dietary practices. Member states can no longer restrict conscience protections solely to religious beliefs. The decision creates obligations for all institutions holding persons in custody or involuntary care—prisons, psychiatric hospitals, immigration detention centers—to implement substantive procedures for accommodating ethical dietary beliefs. Merely offering self-provision or limited grocery purchases is insufficient; institutions must provide balanced, nutritionally adequate meals compatible with applicants’ beliefs or conduct meaningful engagement toward that goal.
Equally important is the Court’s rebuke of procedural formalism used to avoid substantive review. Swiss courts’ refusal to examine the merits because administrators had not issued formal “decisions” exemplifies how technical legal concepts can be weaponized to block access to justice. The judgment signals that authorities cannot use administrative procedure rules as a shield against reviewing genuine rights claims. This has broader implications for asylum, discrimination, and other domains where applicants frequently encounter dismissals based on procedural technicalities rather than substantive adjudication.