Proportionality

The balancing exercise when a public authority refuses to provide vegan food.

Established law and case law

The Article 9(2) test

A limitation on manifestation must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. Necessity requires a pressing social need and proportionality between the restriction and the aim.

Competing interests

Authorities typically invoke cost, kitchen capacity, procurement constraints, nutritional supervision and administrative burden. In Jakóbski the Court found generalised assertions of difficulty insufficient where the accommodation requested was simple.

FFVR analysis — argument, not settled law

FFVR's argument

Where a kitchen already produces a vegetarian option, the marginal burden of a vegan option is small, and FFVR argues a blanket refusal will rarely be proportionate. Each case turns on its own facts.

Sources

Primary source

European Convention on Human Rights

Council of Europe · 1950-11-04 · ETS No. 005

Primary source

Jakóbski v. Poland

European Court of Human Rights · 2010-12-07 · App no 18429/06

Primary source

Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900)

Riksdag · 2017 · SFS 2017:900

The information provided by FFVR is intended for general informational and educational purposes. It is not individual legal advice. The legal analysis presented on this website includes both established law and FFVR's interpretation of relevant legal principles. Where FFVR advocates for a particular legal development, this should not be understood as a statement that such a right already exists under Swedish law.