The European Court of Human Rights has delivered an important judgment about the beliefs of vegans and when vegans ask for suitable food while in prison or otherwise detained in the care or control of public institutions
Dr Jeanette Rowley
In G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland, the Court found that Switzerland violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy after vegans repeatedly asked for suitable food and were not responded to appropriately. It also stated that the Swiss authorities were under a positive duty to address the vegans’ complaints within a clear legal framework and strike a fair balance between accommodating the needs of vegans in their care or control and their organisational, financial and practical constraints.
What the case was about
The case involved two Swiss vegans. G.K. was held in pre-trial detention and A.S. was in a psychiatric hospital. Both depended on those institutions for food and asked for vegan food based on their ethical convictions. Both vegans explained their beliefs in terms of being opposed to the exploitation of non-human animals, with one vegan explaining their commitment to anti-speciesism, which was described as the ethical concept that it is immoral to exploit or harm animals just because non-human animals belong to a different species.
What the Court said
The Court said that where beliefs met the required level of clarity, seriousness, cohesion and importance they can be protected under the human right to freedom of conscience (Article 9). It recognised the vegans’ beliefs about the moral status of animals and their exploitation, and the connection between the vegans’ beliefs and their refusal to eat food derived from non-human animals.
The Court’s judgment builds on the previous 1993 recognition that protection under Article 9 applies to the convictions of vegans in the context of opposition to products of animal origin or products tested on animals. The 1993 acknowledgment, that the convictions of vegans could be protected under Article 9, was recognised by a British employment tribunal in 2020 when it ruled that ethical veganism was a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The Court has now developed its earlier recognition of protection for veganism and applied it to situations where vegans are detained, hospitalised or otherwise dependent on public authorities for food.
Vegetarian, vegan and adequate food
The judgment also makes an important point concerning food provision: providing vegetarian food is not necessarily suitable for vegans. The Court commented that one of the vegans involved continued to receive unsuitable vegetarian food and it was impossible for them to know whether the food had been cooked with animal fats or seasoned with sauces containing animal products. Sometimes this meant they were unable to eat any food at all. This is a basic point that most vegans are probably aware of, but food providers may not realise that a vegetarian meal may contain dairy, eggs, animal fats, animal-derived additives, ingredients or sauces that are unsuitable for ethical vegans.
The Court also noted that some meals had been served with no alternative protein source, which was described as “nutrient-poor”.
Violation of rights and awards for emotional harm
The Court held that the failure of the Swiss authorities to properly deal with the vegans’ complaints about access to suitable vegan food violated their human rights. The Court did not impose a rule that every request from vegans must automatically be granted in every circumstance, but the judgment means that complaints from vegans about the lack of adequate food cannot simply be treated as trivial, dismissed or ignored. They must be examined and handled properly through effective procedures.
The Court awarded one of the vegans €12,000 and the other €4,000 for the emotional harm caused. One of the vegans also received €10,000 to cover legal costs. Switzerland must pay the money to the vegans within three months after the judgment becomes final, and interest will be added if payment is delayed.
What institutions should do now
Hospitals, prisons, psychiatric units, detention centres, care homes and other institutions across Switzerland should review and improve their food provision and complaints policies and practices taking into account the need to:
- Consider the legal protection of ethical vegans in their routine assessments of catering requirements.
- Treat food requests from vegans with respect.
- Establish and maintain effective complaints processes for concerns about food provision.
- Ensure vegan food is nutritionally adequate and clearly identifiable as a 100% plant-derived meal option.
- Ensure that all relevant team members are aware of the difference between vegetarian and vegan food.
Switzerland must abide by the judgment of the Court. However, the Court’s decisions also have a high degree of authority across all the nations that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Sometimes, the Court’s decisions have wider influence too and are recognised in the legal decisions of other courts around the world. Because of the Court’s importance and influence, institutions around the world might be influenced to consider their policies and practices in relation to the dietary (and other) needs of vegans too.
The role of The Vegan Society
The Vegan Society and members of the International Rights Network led by Dr Jeanette Rowley were granted permission by the Court to intervene as a third party in the case. Interventions are granted when courts and judges feel that more information would be helpful to them in their assessment of a case and in reaching an appropriate decision. The Vegan Society’s intervention explained veganism, the ethical convictions of vegans and the connection to anti-speciesism, provided legal, practical and policy context on vegan food provision and explained that a vegan’s diet can be thought of as “ethics in practice”.
Conclusion
The Court’s judgment is a significant step forward for the legal protection of ethical beliefs and convictions against the exploitation of non-human animals. It confirms the legal protection of ethical vegan convictions under human rights law and shows that the Court will take vegans’ experiences of unfair treatment seriously. It requires institutions to show the same respect to vegans as they do to other groups of people, for example, those with dietary requirements grounded in religious faith. Where vegans’ legal rights are breached, the judgment shows that the Court is prepared to award what it considers reasonable awards for the emotional distress caused as well as reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred.
