Christopher DONALDSON v the United Kingdom - 56975/09 [2011] ECHR 210 (25 January 2011)

Christopher DONALDSON v the United Kingdom - 56975/09 [2011] ECHR 210 (25 January 2011)

The restriction on wearing the Easter lily was proportionate to the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime, and maintaining a neutral working environment; prisoners wishing to wear a poppy were not in an analogous situation; the applicant failed to substantiate or exhaust remedies regarding the fair...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 210
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Donaldson; Respondent: United Kingdom
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
25 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility
Outcome
Application inadmissible
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Discrimination, Fair Hearing, Prisoner Rights
Human Rights Law Prison Law Discrimination Law Freedom of Expression Discrimination Fair Hearing Prisoner Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Donaldson

Applicant

United Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ban on wearing Easter lily in prison violated Article 10 (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the policy was discriminatory under Article 14 read with Article 10
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction on wearing the Easter lily was proportionate to the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime, and maintaining a neutral working environment; prisoners wishing to wear a poppy were not in an analogous situation; the applicant failed to substantiate or exhaust remedies regarding the fair hearing claim.

Court Disposition

Application inadmissible

Orders

  • Application declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention