CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 106 March 2008 Blumberg v. Germany - 14618/03 Decision 18.3.2008 [Section V] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Dismissal of a doctor for refusing to perform a medical examination owing to a “moral dilemma”: inadmissible   Facts : The applicant, who is a doctor, was employed by a medical service which provided expert reports to health insurance companies. In 1999 the applicant was ordered to examine an apprentice with a view to her employment in one of the client companies. He refused to do so for reasons of “possible bias” in case he had to work with the apprentice in the future. He was subsequently dismissed. He challenged that decision in court, but to no avail. The appeal court found that the applicant had failed to substantiate the alleged “moral dilemma” he was facing and that his fears of a possible conflict of interest were unjustified because he would only have had to work with the apprentice if he had recommended her for employment. Inadmissible : Since Article 9 primarily protected the sphere of personal beliefs, that is views that attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, the question arose whether the applicant’s refusal to conduct a medical examination in the present case had amounted to a “manifestation of his personal beliefs”. The appeal court had given a convincing explanation when dismissing the applicant’s claim, in particular concerning the lack of substantiation of his moral dilemma. In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant’s refusal to examine the apprentice had not constituted an expression of a coherent view on a fundamental problem and that both his dismissal and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the competent courts could not be regarded as incompatible with the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes