CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 1999

.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 11 October 1999 C.R. v. Switzerland (dec.) - 40130/98 Decision 14.10.1999 [Section II] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Withdrawal of licence to run private security agency due to connections with a sect: inadmissible Swiss law makes the operation of a private security firm subject to a licence and provides that applicants must offer “every guarantee of honourableness”. The applicant’s licence was withdrawn because he and some of his employees belonged to a sect and the authorities had taken the view that that was incompatible with the statutory requirement of honourableness. An application to the courts for judicial review of the withdrawal decision was finally dismissed by the Federal Court. The court examined the special characteristics of a security guard and held that their advantages, in particular the right to carry a gun, gave them greater power and authority than ordinary citizens, which could be abused. Pursuing that line of reasoning, it held that the beliefs of the sect to which the applicant belonged were potentially destabilising for public order and that the measure in issue, albeit harsh, did not constrain the applicant to abandon his convictions and was proportionate to the danger to the public interest. Inadmissible under Article 9: The statutory requirement of honourableness was precise enough to enable persons affected to regulate their conduct. It pursued a legitimate aim, that of protecting public order. The applicant’s religious convictions had been fully weighed against this necessity and so the measure in question was necessary: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Articles 9 and 18 taken in conjunction: The applicant had not furnished any evidence to show that the restriction on his religious freedom had been imposed for an improper purpose: 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