Case Law Index
Judicial decisions and treaty-body views.
A curated index of judgments concerning ethical veganism, freedom of conscience, non-discrimination and dietary rights in institutional settings.
Each entry distinguishes what the decision actually held from what it may support by analogy. Most of the leading dietary cases concern religious convictions; they provide relevant principles under Article 9 but are not direct precedents on ethical veganism. Where a case is described as relevant by analogy, its application to a Swedish public-sector setting is a matter of legal interpretation.
5 of 5 decisions
G.K. and A.S. v Switzerland
ECtHR · 2026App Nos 55299/20 and 31515/22 · Article 9
Chamber judgment of 16 July 2026 (Fifth Section) — not yet final. The Court found that the Swiss authorities' overly formalistic handling of the applicants' requests for a vegan diet, grounded in their ethical convictions, violated Article 9 and Article 13 taken together with Article 9. The applicants were a person in detention and a patient in involuntary psychiatric care.
Relevance
Read the full text at the official source
Direct holding on the handling of vegan dietary requests in closed institutions. The judgment does not establish an unconditional right to vegan food in every public-sector setting; its broader relevance to other public-sector contexts is a matter of legal interpretation and has not been generally established by Swedish case law.Erlich and Kastro v Romania
ECtHR · 2020App Nos 23735/16 and 23740/16 · Prison diet
Judgment of 9 June 2020 (Fourth Section). Article 9 was violated where prison authorities failed to make adequate arrangements for kosher meals for Jewish prisoners, reaffirming Jakóbski and Vartic.
Relevance
Read the full text at the official source
Relevant by analogy. Religious dietary requirements in detention; supports the principle that arrangements must be genuinely considered, not that any particular diet must be provided.Vartic v Romania (No 2)
ECtHR · 2013App No 14150/08, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1217JUD001415008 · Prison diet
Judgment of 17 December 2013 (Third Section). The prison authorities' failure to provide meals consistent with the applicant's Buddhist beliefs breached Article 9; administrative inconvenience does not outweigh the positive obligation of reasonable accommodation (§§ 47–50).
Relevance
Read the full text at the official source
Relevant by analogy. The conviction was religious. The case provides relevant principles on individual assessment of dietary requests in detention rather than a holding on vegan diets.Jakóbski v Poland
ECtHR · 2010App No 18429/06, ECHR 2010, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1207JUD001842906 · Prison diet
Judgment of 7 December 2010 (Fourth Section). Refusal to provide a Buddhist prisoner with a meat-free diet violated Article 9 ECHR; the Court found no evidence that a simple vegetarian diet would have entailed disruption to prison management (§§ 48–55).
Relevance
Read the full text at the official source
Relevant by analogy. The applicant's conviction was religious (Buddhist), not ethical veganism, so the case should not be presented as a direct vegan-rights precedent. It provides relevant principles concerning conviction-based dietary requirements under Article 9 and the assessment of the practical burden on the institution.Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom
ECtHR · 1982App Nos 7511/76 and 7743/76, Series A no 48 · Article 9
Judgment of 25 February 1982. Established that 'convictions' denote views attaining a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance (§ 36) — the threshold subsequently applied to ethical veganism.
Relevance
Read the full text at the official source
Establishes the threshold test for a protected conviction. It says nothing about diets; its relevance to veganism lies in the application of that test.