CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 71 January 2005 Phull v. France (dec.) - 35753/03 Decision 11.1.2005 [Section II] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Obligation to remove turban when going through the security screen of an airport: inadmissible The applicant was a practising Sikh, and thus belonged to a religion that required its followers to wear the turban. He complained that, when going through the security scanner at an airport as a prelude to entering the departure area, security staff had required him to remove his turban for inspection, although he had agreed to go through the walk-through scanner and to be checked with a hand-held detector.   Inadmissible under Article 9: As the Sikh religion required its male followers to wear a turban, the Court could assume that the disputed measure constituted an interference in the applicant’s freedom to manifest his religion or beliefs. The applicant did not allege that the measure was not “prescribed by law” and the measure pursued at least one of the legitimate aims listed in the second paragraph of Article 9   (guaranteeing “public safety”). As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, safety checks in airports were undoubtedly necessary for “public safety” and the arrangements for implementing them in the instant case fell within the respondent State’s margin of appreciation, all the more so since this measure was only occasionally required: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: In themselves, security checks in airports, imposed on passengers prior to departure, did not constitute a restriction on freedom of movement: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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