G.K. and A.S. v Switzerland

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-251193

Background

G.K. and A.S. v Switzerland (2026) is a European Court of Human Rights case concerning the protection afforded to ethical veganism by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’). It concerns circumstances in which individuals were deprived of their liberty and were dependent on the State for food.

The European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) joined together the applications of a pre-trial detainee and an involuntary psychiatric patient. Both Applicants complained that they were given meals that were unsuitable or inadequate for a balanced vegan diet. The Applicants argued that, by failing to consistently provide them with vegan meals, the Swiss authorities had breached their Article 9 rights to freedom of belief. They also argued that Swiss domestic law had prevented them from effectively challenging this arguable violation of their Convention rights before the domestic courts. 

The Court was therefore required to consider whether the Applicants’ ethical veganism and adherence to a vegan diet were protected by Article 9. Additionally, if they were, whether the Swiss authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations under that provision. The Court was also asked to consider whether the Applicants had an effective method of challenging the potential violation of their rights within the domestic legal system.

Facts

The First Applicant: G.K.

The First Applicant, referred to in proceedings as ‘G.K.’, was held in pre-trial detention in Geneva between November 2018 and October 2019. During his detention, G.K informed the authorities that his ethical belief against harming animals required him to follow a vegan diet.

The Swiss authorities maintained that most of the prison’s vegetarian menu was suitable for vegans and that additional food and vegan products were available. G.K. argued, however, that many of those meals contained animal products and that the alternatives did not provide a balanced vegan diet. Despite repeatedly raising the issue, he never received a formal decision on his request.

G.K.'s attempt to challenge the prison’s response was declared inadmissible because the correspondence he received from the prison authorities was not considered an appealable administrative decision. That conclusion was then upheld by Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court.

The Second Applicant: A.S.

The Second Applicant, ‘A.S.’, was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Lausanne between February and April 2021. He informed the hospital that he had been vegan for 16 years because of his opposition to animal exploitation.

Although the hospital attempted to adapt its menus, A.S. was served a number of meals containing animal products and he maintained that other meals were nutritionally inadequate. A.S. requested a formal declaration that he was entitled to balanced vegan meals, but the hospital responded without issuing an appealable decision. A.S.’s subsequent appeal was declared inadmissible on that basis, and the Federal Supreme Court upheld that conclusion.

The Law

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty that protects the fundamental civil and political rights of individuals residing in the member States party to the Convention. The provisions relevant to the case at hand are found contained in Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention.

Under Article 9 of the Convention, “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.  This right includes the right to “manifest [one’s] religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”.

Although the freedom to hold a belief is absolute, the right to manifest that belief may be restricted in certain circumstances. Under Article 9(2) limits can be placed on an individual's right to manifest their belief where it is “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

Under Article 13 of the Convention, member States must have domestic procedures and mechanisms through which individuals can raise complaints that their Convention rights have been violated.

Judgment 

In reaching its judgment, the Court addressed four relevant questions: 

1. whether the Applicants’ ethical veganism was protected by Article 9 of the Convention;

2. whether abstaining from animal-derived food was a practice sufficiently connected to those beliefs to be protected under Article 9;

3. whether Article 9 imposed positive obligations on the Swiss authorities, and, if so, whether the Swiss authorities had fulfilled those obligations; and

4. whether the Applicants had an effective means of challenging the arguable violations of their rights as required under Article 13. 

(1) Whether the Applicants’ ethical veganism was protected by Article 9 of the Convention

The Court considered whether Article 9 applied to the Applicants’ beliefs. The question was whether their ethical veganism was protected under the Convention.

The Court held that, whilst not all opinions or convictions constitute beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention (Pretty v UK [2002]), a belief would be protected if it attained a sufficient “level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” [86]. This was a test first formulated by the Court in the ECtHR case of Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982). It has since been applied in UK domestic law in cases including Grainger plc v Nicholson (2010).  

The Court noted that vegan convictions had previously received protection under Article 9 – including in the former European Commission of Human Rights decision W v UK (1993). The Court also conducted comparative-law research and found that the Council of Europe member States generally regarded veganism as a non-religious belief [57]–[58], [88].

In light of those considerations, and because Switzerland did not challenge the sincerity or consistency of the Applicants’ ethical veganism, the Court held that their beliefs did indeed fall within the scope of Article 9 [89].

(2) Whether abstaining from animal-derived food was a practice sufficiently connected to those beliefs to be protected under Article 9

The Court then considered whether the Applicants’ conduct – abstaining from animal-derived food in accordance with their beliefs – was protected under Article 9.

The Court explained that for a specific practice or conduct to count as a “manifestation” of a belief, and so be protected under Article 9, there must be a sufficiently close and direct connection between that conduct and the underlying belief. Whether that connection exists must be determined on the facts of each case [86]. 

The Court noted that – in cases such as Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France [2000] – it had previously held that, “in practice, observing dietary rules can be considered a direct manifestation of religion or belief in the sense of Article 9” [88]. 

In the present case, the Court held that the Applicants’ abstention from consuming animal-derived food was directly connected to their ethical veganism. The Applicants’ compliance with dietary rules arising from genuine and consistently held beliefs was therefore protected by Article 9 [88]–[89], [120].

(3) Whether Article 9 imposed positive obligations on the Swiss authorities, and, if so, whether the Swiss authorities had fulfilled those obligations

In its judgment, the Court explained that in certain contexts Article 9 may require a State to provide an effective and accessible means of protecting the rights it guarantees and, where appropriate, to take specific measures to secure those rights. The Court referred to the case of Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v Switzerland (2017), where this principle had been emphasised [119].

As such, the Court examined whether such a requirement existed in the present case, and, if it did, whether the Swiss authorities had fulfilled their obligations. 

The Court did not decide whether Article 9 imposed a specific obligation on the Swiss authorities to supply the Applicants with vegan menus. The Court acknowledged that the extent of the State’s positive obligation depended on striking a fair balance between the Applicants’ interests and any organisational, financial or practical constraints. Citing CGAS v Switzerland [2023], the Court reiterated the general principle that domestic authorities are ordinarily better placed to assess local needs and conditions than an international court [130]. 

This said, the Court did find that Article 9 imposed a burden on the authorities to address the Applicants’ requests substantively and weigh up the various competing interests [126]. 

The Court found that the domestic authorities had failed to undertake any substantive examination of the merits of the Applicants' grievances. The Court therefore concluded that this failure amounted to a violation of Article 9 [129], [131].

(4) Whether the Applicants had an effective means of challenging arguable violations of their rights as required under Article 13

Article 13 of the Convention requires member States to provide individuals with an effective means of raising arguable complaints that their Convention rights have been violated. This includes ensuring that individuals are able to challenge any arguable violations of their Article 9 right to freedom of belief [76]–[83].

The Court considered whether Swiss domestic law provided the Applicants with the means to effectively raise their grievances.

Both Applicants wrote to the relevant authority responsible for the provision of their meals whilst they were deprived of their liberty. Both sought formal decisions from the authorities which they could, if necessary, challenge through the domestic legal system. In their responses, however, neither institution provided such a decision. When the Applicants attempted to challenge the authorities in the domestic courts, the courts determined that the authorities' responses to their requests for vegan meals were merely informative communications, rather than formal administrative decisions capable of appeal under Swiss domestic law [91]–[92].

The European Court of Human Rights held that the way in which both the administrative authorities and national courts had applied the domestic law made it practically impossible for the Applicants to obtain the administrative decisions necessary for their claims to be examined on the merits [94]. 

The Court held that the domestic authorities’ excessively formalistic approach as regards what did and did not amount to an appealable decision meant the Applicants had no effective means to challenge the arguable violations of their Convention rights. The Court concluded that the domestic authorities had therefore breached the Applicants’ Article 13 rights [94]–[96].

Commentary

The principal significance of the judgment in G.K. and A.S. v Switzerland is the Court’s express recognition that ethical veganism can constitute a protected belief under Article 9 and that adherence to a vegan diet can amount to a protected manifestation of that belief. Although the judgment remains grounded in human rights law rather than the legal interests of animals, it recognises the seriousness and coherence that an ethical opposition to harming animals may possess, and protects individuals’ ability to live in accordance with those beliefs.

The decision does not establish an unconditional entitlement to any particular vegan menu. The Court accepted that competing interests may be relevant. Instead, the central requirement is that public authorities take requests founded upon protected vegan beliefs seriously, consider them substantively and strike a fair balance between the competing interests, taking account of any relevant constraints. 

Whilst the particular accommodation required of the State will therefore depend upon the circumstances, it seems that the judgment is likely to be especially important where individuals are deprived of their liberty or otherwise dependent upon the State for food. In those circumstances, merely directing a person to purchase alternatives or make their own arrangements may be inadequate, particularly where those options do not provide a realistic means of following a balanced vegan diet. . 

Getting Advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com.