Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 9476/19

48420/10 and 3 others, § 82, ECHR 2013 (extracts)] and S.A.S. v. France [[GC], no. 43835/11, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)]... Viewed in the light of this case-law the question arises whether the approach applied previously by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division and in the present case by the Regional Court can be maintained in full.

However, provided this condition is satisfied - and when it has thus been established that Article 9 applies -, the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality is incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 55, ECHR 2014, and Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 48420/10 and 3 others, § 81, ECHR 2013, with further references).

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 9476/19

Inter alia in its admissibility decision of 13 November 2008 [Mann Singh v. France (dec.), no. 24479/07] the ECHR has accepted that not only the wearing of religious head coverings may be considered as a religious act, but also that this qualification may in addition apply in the specific situation where the person concerned is not willing temporarily to take off that head covering in order to have pictures taken for diplomas, identity cards, driving licenses and the like.

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 9476/19

Although the concept of "religion or belief" in the sense of being protected by Article 9 must be interpreted broadly, that does not mean that all opinions or convictions are to be regarded as such (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 9476/19

The Court reiterates that it cannot examine legislation and policy in the abstract, its task rather being to examine the application of specific measures or policies to the facts of each individual case (see, among other authorities, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-I).

Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 9476/19

According to the established case-law of the ECHR, for a construct of views to be considered a religion or a belief within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention, those view must have obtained a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance..., see, inter alia, Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom [25 February 1982, § 36, Series A no. 48] and the aforementioned judgments of 15 January 2013 [Eweida and Others, § 81] and 1 July 2014 [S.A.S. v. France, § 55].