An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Eweida v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Eweida v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000. The case arose from a dispute between British Airways (BA) and one of its employees, Nadia Eweida, over its uniform policy, which required that religious jewellery had to be worn out of sight, under one's clothing. Eweida visibly wore a necklace with a religious symbol, a small cross, while working. British Airways placed her on unpaid leave for doing so. The British courts ruled in favour of British Airways and against Eweida under the Human Rights Act 1998, an Act of the British Parliament which implements the European Convention in British law. Eweida then brought a complaint under the European Convention against the Government of the United Kingdom, alleging that the decisions of the British courts amounted to a failure by the United Kingdom to protect her religious rights. The case was widely reported in the British media. Some individuals argued that British Airways' policy showed anti-Christian prejudice. Other groups argued that it showed favouritism towards people of faith. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 8242258 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 17059 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1117377878 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:court
  • European Court of Human Rights (en)
dbp:judges
  • David Thór Björgvinsson , Nicolas Bratza, Lech Garlicki, Päivi Hirvelä, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vučinić, Vincent A. De Gaetano (en)
dbp:keywords
  • Indirect discrimination, religion, clothing policy (en)
dbp:name
  • Eweida v United Kingdom (en)
dbp:priorActions
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • Eweida v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Eweida v United Kingdom (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License