Information Note on the Court’s case-law 19

June 2000

Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC] - 27417/95

Judgment 27.6.2000 [GC]

Article 9

Article 9-1

Manifest religion or belief

Refusal of permit to carry out ritual slaughters in accordance with the strict requirements of an Orthodox Jewish association: no violation

Article 14

Discrimination

Religion

Refusal of permit to carry out ritual slaughters in accordance with the strict requirements of an Orthodox Jewish association: no violation

(Extract from press release)

Facts : In 1987 the applicant association asked the Minister of the Interior to submit a proposal to the Minister of Agriculture recommending that it be given the official approval it needed in order to be able to perform ritual slaughter in accordance with the very strict religious prescriptions of its members, for whom meat is not kosher unless it is “ glatt ”. Meat from slaughtered animals cannot be “ glatt ” if an examination of their lungs reveals the slightest blemish. The application was refused at final insta nce by the Conseil d’Etat in a judgment of 25 November 1994 on the ground that the applicant could not be considered a “religious body” within the meaning of Article 10 of the Decree of 1 October 1980, which permits exemption from the obligation to stun an imals before they are slaughtered only in the case of ritual slaughter carried out by ritual slaughterers authorised by an approved religious body.

The applicant association complained that the refusal of its application for approval infringed its freedom to manifest its religion through observance, guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It further complained, under Article 14 of the Convention, that it was the victim of discrimination contrary to that Article in that the approv al it sought, which was needed to obtain access to slaughterhouses, was granted only to the Paris Central Consistory (“the ACIP”), the association which represented the vast majority of Jews in France, whose ritual slaughterers, in the applicant’s submissi on, did not carry out a sufficiently thorough examination of the meat which they certified as kosher.

Law : Article 9 of the Convention taken alone - In the Court’s opinion, there would have been interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion only if the illegality of performing ritual slaughter had made it impossible for ultra-orthodox Jews to eat meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with the religious prescriptions they considered applicable. But that was not the case. It was not contested that the applicant association could easily obtain supplies of “ glatt ” meat in Belgium. Furthermore, it was apparent from the written depositions and bailiffs’ official reports produced by the interveners that a number of butcher’s shops operating under the control of the ACIP made meat certified “ glatt ” by the Beth Din ava ilable to Jews. It emerged from the case file as a whole, and from the oral submissions at the hearing, that Jews who belonged to the applicant association could thus obtain “ glatt ” meat. In particular, the Government had referred, without being contradict ed on the point, to negotiations between the applicant and the ACIP with a view to reaching an agreement whereby the applicant could perform ritual slaughter itself under cover of the approval granted to the ACIP, an agreement which had not been reached, f or financial reasons.

On those grounds the Court held that the refusal of approval complained of had not constituted an interference with the applicant association’s right to freedom to manifest its religion.

Conclusion : no violation (12 votes to 5).

Artic le 9 of the Convention taken together with Article 14 - The Court noted that the facts of the present case fell within the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention and that therefore Article 14 was applicable. However, in the light of its findings concerning t he limited effect of the measure complained of, findings which had led the Court to conclude that there had been no interference with the applicant association’s freedom to manifest its religion, the Court considered that the difference of treatment which had resulted from the measure was limited in scope. The measure complained of had pursued a legitimate aim, and there had been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. Such difference of tre atment as there was had therefore had an objective and reasonable justification within the meaning of the Court’s consistent case-law.

Conclusion : no violation (10 votes to 7).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registr y does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes