2021/03/23 – 30 Cdo 4133/2019 (summary)

Judgment of the Supreme Court of 23 March 2021, Case No 30 Cdo 4133/2019

(Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights; interference with freedom of thought, conscience, and religion)

The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic ruled in favour of an activist L. B., who had been denied vegan meals during his detention in the Litoměřice facility and sought an apology from the Ministry of Justice. L. B., detained from September 2016 to April 2017 on suspicion of extremist activities, had repeatedly requested vegan meals, but the facility provided only vegetarian options. As an ethical vegan, L. B. refused to consume animal products and requested a transfer to another facility with vegan meal options, but his request was denied.

The District Court initially sided with L. B., ordering the Ministry to issue an apology for the denial of vegan meals. However, the Ministry appealed, citing logistical difficulties and budgetary constraints in providing specialized meals. The appellate court ruled in favour of the Ministry. L. B. then filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision of the appellate court violated his constitutional rights. He claimed that denying vegan meals to an individual who is a vegan for ethical reasons constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of thought and conscience. He also contended that the appellate court improperly prioritized freedom of religion over freedom of thought and conscience in the context of prison meals, referencing the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “ECtHR“) judgment of 7 December 2010 in the case of Jakóbski v. Poland, case no. 18429/06, which rejected financial and logistical objections to accommodating dietary needs. Furthermore, L. B. challenged the appellate court’s reasoning, including claims of high costs and insufficient budget (57 CZK/day, ca. 2,30 EUR), lacked evidence and contradicted expert opinions he provided. He noted that vegan meals are no more burdensome than other special diets already accommodated in prison.

The Supreme Court in its ruling emphasized that detention facilities must respect the cultural, religious, and ethical beliefs of detainees. It pointed out that requests for meals aligned with personal beliefs should not be rejected solely due to logistical or technical reasons. The Supreme Court clarified that such requests can only be denied if they impose disproportionate financial or operational burdens on the institution.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the refusal to provide vegan meals violated L. B.’s rights under Article 15 of the national Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Act No 2/1993 Coll., resolution of the Presidium of the Czech National Council of 16 December 1992 on the declaration of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms as a part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. In English available here.), which protects the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The Supreme Court highlighted that ethical beliefs, like veganism, are protected in the same way as religious beliefs and must be respected by public authorities, including in detention facilities.

The ruling aligns with ECtHR’s precedents concerning especially Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which have affirmed that dietary preferences rooted in belief are protected under the right to freedom of thought and conscience. The Supreme Court emphasized that restrictions on these freedoms must be justified by law and necessary. It also underlined that any limitations on detainees’ rights should respect their dignity and be proportionate to the needs of maintaining order and security in detention.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for detention facilities to accommodate detainees' ethical and religious beliefs, provided it does not impose undue operational burdens. It ensures that the right to manifest one’s beliefs, including dietary choices, is upheld in accordance with international human rights standards.