CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 octobre 2001

.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 35 October 2001 Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.) - 49853/99 Decision 2.10.2001 [Section III] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Conviction of pharmacists for refusing, on religious grounds, to sell the contraceptive pill: inadmissible The applicants, who are both pharmacists, refused to dispense lawfully prescribed contraceptive products to three women on the same occasion. They were found guilty of refusing to sell medically prescribed contraceptive products. The Police Court held that ethical or religious principles could not serve as a valid reason for refusing to sell a contraceptive product. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on an appeal by the applicants, holding that the grounds for the applicants’ refusal had related not to the fact that they were physically unable to meet their customers’ requests because the pharmacy did not stock the product in question, but rather to their religious beliefs, which, under the applicable legislation, could not serve as a valid reason for refusing to sell a product. The applicants appealed on points of law, relying on Article   9 of the Convention, which, they argued, guaranteed their freedom to manifest their religion. They inferred from that provision that pharmacists were entitled not to stock contraceptive products whose use ran counter to their religious beliefs. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. Inadmissible under Article 9 of the Convention: the contraceptive pill was legally available for sale and, by law, could only be sold on prescription in pharmacies; accordingly, the applicants could not rely on their religious beliefs or impose them on others to justify refusing to sell that product, and there were many ways in which they could manifest their beliefs outside the professional sphere: 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