欧洲法院确认道德素食主义为受保护的哲学信仰
ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

原始链接: https://veganfta.com/articles/2026/07/17/european-court-confirms-ethical-veganism-is-a-protected-philosophical-belief-in-europe/

2026年7月16日,欧洲人权法院(ECHR)裁定,瑞士未能在两名个人被拘留期间提供充足的纯素餐食,侵犯了他们的权利。 此案源于2018年,当时日内瓦尚多隆监狱(Champ-Dollon prison)的一名动物权利活动人士被拒绝提供营养均衡的纯素饮食。在瑞士国内法律上诉失败后,此案被提交至欧洲人权法院,另一名曾接受精神病治疗的患者也加入了此案。法院结论认为,瑞士违反了《欧洲人权公约》第9条,该条款保障思想、良心和宗教自由。 至关重要的是,该判决正式承认伦理纯素主义和反物种歧视主义属于受保护的哲学信仰。法院强调,除非存在无法克服的实际或经济困难,否则当局有“积极义务”去满足这些信仰的需求。 这一里程碑式的裁决与此前类似的先例一致,例如2020年英国就业法庭裁定伦理纯素主义是一种受保护的特征。通过确认这些保护措施,欧洲人权法院要求其司法管辖区内的国家,必须在机构要求与被剥夺自由者真诚持有的信仰之间取得公平平衡。

抱歉。
相关文章

原文

On 16th July 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Switzerland violated the fundamental rights of two vegans who were not consistently provided with vegan meals while held in detention facilities, confirming that ethical veganism and anti-speciesism are protected philosophical beliefs within Europe. 

This court is part of the Council of Europe and not the EU, and therefore Switzerland, a non-EU European country, is also covered by it (as are the UK, Norway and Turkey).  The Swiss case started with an animal rights activist being arrested in November 2018 for his direct-action activities and placed in pre-trial detention at Geneva’s Champ-Dollon prison for 11 months. He took the government to court because he was not offered a sufficiently nutritious vegan diet. An appeal was deemed inadmissible by Switzerland’s federal court in June 2020, after which the prisoner’s lawyer took the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights. That is when a former patient at a Swiss psychiatric hospital unit joined the appeal, which was dealt with by the ECHR as it had already accepted the case. 

In October 2022, the court asked the Swiss state to consider whether the Geneva prison had violated Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” The Court has now confirmed that it did. 

The judgment found that the authorities had breached the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, as well as the right to an effective remedy. The paragraph 126 of the judgement states, “In the circumstances of the present case, and having regard to the above comparative research, the Court considers that, faced with the applicants’ consistent and genuine vegan beliefs and their requests for a vegan diet while deprived of liberty, the authorities were under a positive obligation stemming from Article 9 to address those requests in substance and within a clear domestic legal framework. Failing this, it is difficult to consider that the authorities have done what was necessary to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, having regard to the aims mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 9 (see paragraph 118 above). As to the factors to be taken into consideration when examining such requests, they include the applicants’ interest but also any possible organisational, financial or practical constraints for the authorities.”

This case now adds to the other legal cases where veganism has been accepted as a protected characteristic, as has been the case in the UK since 2020, when a judge in Norwich Employment Tribunal first ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The ECHR judges mentioned this case in their written judgement, as well as a 2021 case in Bologna, Italy, that was also influenced by the UK case. 

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com