The debate over providing vegetarian and vegan meals to incarcerated individuals has intensified in recent years, spotlighting the intricate balance between prisoners’ rights and state obligations. Landmark cases in European human rights courts have set precedents for accommodating dietary preferences linked to religious or philosophical beliefs. But what happens when these preferences stem from personal convictions rather than organized religion? Is the state obligated to honor these choices, or are they an undue burden on the prison system?
Religious Belief vs. Personal Preference
Under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), individuals are guaranteed the freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs through practice and observance, which includes dietary restrictions. In the seminal case of Jakóbski v. Poland (2010), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that denying a Buddhist prisoner a vegetarian diet violated his right to manifest his religion. The Court emphasized that the prisoner’s adherence to a vegetarian diet was a direct expression of his Buddhist beliefs (§35). It was concluded that accommodating such dietary restrictions falls squarely under Article 9 and should be honored unless it imposes an undue burden on prison administration (§45).
Similarly, in Vartic v. Romania (No. 2), the ECtHR sided with a prisoner who was denied a vegetarian diet required by his Buddhist faith. The Court reinforced that prison authorities must balance accommodating prisoners’ religious dietary needs with the practicalities of prison management (§§44-55).
However, the line blurs when dietary choices are based on personal preference rather than religious or philosophical beliefs. In Şehmus Özsubaşı v. Turkey (2016), the Turkish Constitutional Court found that a prisoner’s request for vegetarian food was not a matter of religious freedom since he did not associate his diet with any religion or deeply held belief. Instead, the case was examined under the right to protect one’s physical and moral integrity, as safeguarded by Article 17 of the Turkish Constitution (§§35-37).
Balancing Rights with Financial and Administrative Burdens
In both Jakóbski and Vartic, the ECtHR acknowledged that while providing a vegetarian diet might introduce some financial and administrative challenges, these must be weighed against the fundamental rights of the prisoner. The Court found that offering vegetarian meals—especially when they don’t require special preparation or ingredients—is not a significant disruption to prison operations (Jakóbski v. Poland, §§48-55).
In Vartic, the state’s argument that accommodating a vegetarian diet would cause unreasonable administrative difficulties was dismissed. The Court noted that many prisons already provide special diets for medical reasons, suggesting that extending this accommodation to religious dietary needs is feasible (§51). The central concern for states is ensuring these meals are nutritionally adequate and accessible without overburdening the system.
A New Frontier: Veganism in the ECtHR
The recent case of G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland marks a pivotal moment in this evolving legal landscape. Both applicants—one a prisoner and the other a psychiatric patient—were denied a fully vegan diet by Swiss authorities. They argue that this refusal violates their rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the ECHR, which guarantee respect for private life and freedom of conscience, respectively. Additionally, the second applicant raises a claim under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 8 and 9.
The ECtHR’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications. If the Court recognizes veganism as a protected belief system under Article 9, it may obligate states to accommodate vegan dietary needs in prisons and hospitals across member states. This could impact food provision for approximately 700 million people, setting a new standard for how ethical and religious dietary preferences are handled in institutional settings.
Looking Forward
The pending decision in G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland may further clarify the Court’s stance on dietary accommodations in prisons and other institutions. Should the Court side with the applicants, it would establish veganism as a protected belief, compelling European countries to adjust their policies accordingly.
Given the rising prominence of veganism and anti-speciesism across Europe, this case is one to watch. It has the potential to reshape human rights protections for prisoners and institutionalized patients, pushing the boundaries of how personal beliefs are respected within the legal framework.
Conclusion
The intersection of personal preference and fundamental rights continues to be a complex legal terrain. The cases discussed highlight that when dietary requirements stem from deeply held religious or philosophical convictions, states have a clear obligation under Article 9 of the ECHR to accommodate these needs. Personal preferences without such grounding, however, may receive less deference, varying by jurisdiction.
As societal values evolve and new belief systems gain recognition, legal interpretations must adapt. The challenge lies in upholding fundamental rights without imposing undue burdens on state institutions. The forthcoming decisions by human rights courts will be instrumental in defining this balance, ensuring that the dignity and beliefs of all individuals—free or incarcerated—are respected.
References:
- Jakóbski v. Poland, Application no. 18429/06, ECtHR Judgment of 7 December 2010.
- Vartic v. Romania (No. 2), Application no. 14150/08, ECtHR Judgment of 17 December 2013.
- Şehmus Özsubaşı v. Turkey, Application no. 2013-2582, Turkish Constitutional Court Judgment of 14 December 2016.
- G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland, Applications nos. 55299/20 and 31515/22, communicated to the ECtHR.
Guilty Pleasures 