This judgment, *G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland*, marks a significant development in European human rights law regarding the rights of individuals deprived of their liberty to maintain their ethical beliefs. The case concerned two applicants—one in pre-trial detention and one in involuntary psychiatric care—who were denied a fully vegan diet by the Swiss authorities. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that veganism, when based on a sincere and consistent ethical conviction, falls within the scope of Article 9 (freedom of thought and conscience). The Court found that the Swiss authorities failed to provide a substantive examination of the applicants’ grievances, instead relying on an “excessively formalistic” approach that prevented the claims from being heard on their merits. Consequently, the Court held that Switzerland violated both Article 9 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). This ruling establishes that states have a positive obligation to address such requests in substance, balancing individual beliefs against practical and financial constraints.
### Structure and Provisions
The decision is structured as a standard Chamber judgment, but it is notable for its integration of comparative law research across 41 Council of Europe member states.
* **Admissibility:** The Court joined the applications and dismissed the Government’s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, ruling that the domestic legal system had effectively denied the applicants access to a court by refusing to classify the prison/hospital responses as “decisions” that could be challenged.
* **Article 13 (Effective Remedy):** The Court determined that the domestic authorities’ refusal to issue a formal, appealable decision created a procedural vacuum, rendering the applicants’ rights under the Convention illusory.
* **Article 9 (Freedom of Thought and Conscience):** The Court explicitly recognized that veganism, as a non-religious belief, is protected under Article 9. It emphasized that when a person is under the “care and control” of the State, the authorities are under a positive obligation to consider dietary requests that manifest such beliefs.
* **Changes/Evolution:** This judgment clarifies that the “reasonable accommodation” standard, previously applied primarily to religious dietary needs (e.g., *Jakóbski v. Poland*), now extends to sincerely held ethical/philosophical convictions like veganism.
### Key Provisions for Legal Use
For practitioners and observers, the following points are the most critical:
1. **Recognition of Veganism:** The Court confirmed that veganism meets the required level of “cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” to be protected under Article 9.
2. **Positive Obligation:** States are now under a clear positive obligation to address requests for vegan diets in substance. This does not mean an absolute right to a specific menu, but it does require a “fair balance” to be struck between the individual’s belief and the institution’s organizational or financial constraints.
3. **Prohibition of Excessive Formalism:** The judgment serves as a warning against “excessive formalism” in administrative law. Authorities cannot avoid their human rights obligations by simply labeling responses as “informative” or “non-binding” to prevent judicial review.
4. **The “Care and Control” Factor:** The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicants were in a position of vulnerability and total dependence on the State, which heightens the State’s responsibility to accommodate their fundamental beliefs.
***
*Note: While this decision focuses on Swiss law, it is relevant to all Council of Europe member states, including those currently undergoing reform of their penitentiary and healthcare systems, such as Ukraine, where the Court noted that no specific right to a special diet based on non-religious beliefs had yet been identified in domestic law. .*
