This article delineates the problem of judicial subjectivity in so-called ‘hard cases’. Decisions in such cases are essentially decisions of conscience, which in principle can escape the control mechanisms of objectivation and justification. This leads to the question as to the attributes of a good judge.

In a unanimous decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has accepted the refusal of an exemption of compulsory mixed swimming lessons for elementary school girls in Switzerland. The exemption was requested by the parents of the two girls as the requirement to let their daughters participate in those lessons was contrary to their religious conviction. The author discusses the decision in the light of national debates on integration and subscribes its outcome. Specific attention is paid to the ECtHR’s interpretation of the legitimacy of the aim of the Swiss authorities and the role of the numerical presence of Islam in the underlying Swiss court’s ruling which is upheld by ECtHR.

What divides the ECtHR in religion cases? Study of dissenting opinions in religion cases of the ECtHR sheds a light on dividing lines within the ECtHR and deepens our understanding of the methods of reasoning of the ECtHR itself. Following an analysis of dissenting opinions in religion cases in the rulings of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, this article focuses on the Chamber. As in the previous analysis, a clear pattern in the dividing lines is brought to light. This article discusses and evaluates this finding.

Religion cases of the European Court of Human Rights are much commented on. A systematic analysis of dissenting opinions in religion cases, however, does not exist. Such analysis can shed light on dividing lines within the ECtHR and deepen our understanding of the methods of reasoning of the ECtHR itself. This article contains analysis of dissenting opinions in the rulings of the Grand Chamber in religion cases. The analysis shows a pattern in the dividing lines. Contrary to the prior expectation, the margin of appreciation as such forms no such dividing line. The article discusses and evaluates the findings.

In its ruling of June 12, 2014, the European Court on Human Rights (Grand Chamber) concluded that no violation of the right to private life and family life under the European Convention of Human Rights had taken place in the case of the non-renewal of an employment contract of a Roman Catholic teacher of religion and ethics. The reason for this non-renewal was the withdrawal of the required ecclesiastical approval of the teacher. According to the European Court, church autonomy prevailed in this case over the right to private life and family life of the teacher, a married priest with five children and an active member of an organization promoting voluntary celibacy. This contribution analyses and discusses the ruling of the ECHR, also in the light of the main dissenting opinion. It supports the Court’s conclusion, but criticizes some of its reasoning. It also states that regardless of the extent of church autonomy, a clear and correct procedural approach to employment issues also does honour ecclesiastical authorities.