Introduction
On 16 July 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section) delivered its judgment in G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland (Applications nos. 55299/20 and 31515/22), a case concerning the right of two individuals held in state custody to receive a fully vegan diet in accordance with their ethical beliefs. The judgment addresses two distinct situations: the first applicant, G.K., was held in pre-trial detention at Champ-Dollon Prison in Geneva between 30 November 2018 and 24 October 2019; the second applicant, A.S., was confined in the psychiatric unit of a cantonal hospital.
The Court examined the case primarily under Article 9 of the Convention, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and under Article 13, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy. The judgment is significant in that it treats veganism, understood as an ethical belief system, as capable of falling within the protective scope of Article 9, and it finds that Switzerland failed both to examine the applicants' grievances on the merits and to provide them with effective domestic remedies through which to pursue those grievances.
This article sets out the factual background, the legal questions raised, and the Court's principal findings as they appear in the judgment. It does not extend beyond the content of the official document.
Background and factual context
The first applicant, born in 1991 and resident in Vernier (Châtelaine), was represented before the Court by a lawyer practising in Geneva. He was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with acts of damage to property committed in the context of his support for an anti-speciesism movement. The judgment notes that anti-speciesism is described as the ethical concept that it is immoral to exploit or harm animals because they belong to a different species.
During his detention, the Swiss Government submitted that the first applicant had been provided with vegetarian food compatible with a vegan diet, with the exception of two dishes — polenta and mashed potatoes. Meals were served on a self-service basis, allowing the applicant to take additional servings of vegetables, fruit and starchy foods. He was subsequently also provided with additional portions of fruit, raw vegetables and starchy foods. Furthermore, the first applicant was able to purchase vegan products from the prison grocery store, which he did regularly, and he received eleven food parcels from relatives containing various vegan foods during his period of detention.
The second applicant, born in 1988 and resident in Lausanne, was represented by a lawyer practising in Lausanne. He was confined in the psychiatric unit of a cantonal hospital and similarly sought access to a fully vegan diet in accordance with his ethical beliefs. Both applications were lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention — the first on 11 December 2020 and the second on 21 June 2022.
The Court gave notice to the Swiss Government of complaints under Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention, concerning the domestic authorities' failure to provide the applicants with fully vegan diets. The remainder of application no. 55299/20 was declared inadmissible. The applicants' names were not disclosed, and third-party comments were submitted by the Vegan Society, Vegan Australia, and the Criminal Law Research Center of the Free University of Brussels, all of which were granted leave to intervene in the written procedure.
The scope of Article 9: veganism as a protected belief
A central question before the Court was whether veganism, as an ethical belief system, falls within the protective scope of Article 9 of the Convention. The judgment records that veganism is considered by Council of Europe member states as a non-religious belief, and the Court assessed whether the applicants' beliefs met the required threshold for Convention protection.
The Court considered the sincerity and consistency of the applicants' beliefs, as well as the existence of a sufficiently close connection between those beliefs and the applicants' abstaining from the consumption of food derived from animal sources. On the basis of this assessment, the Court concluded that the applicants' beliefs had met the required level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance necessary to fall within the scope of Article 9.
This finding is consistent with the established Convention framework under which Article 9 protects not only religious beliefs but also philosophical and ethical convictions of sufficient weight and seriousness. The judgment does not treat the institutional setting — pre-trial detention or involuntary psychiatric care — as removing the applicability of Article 9, but rather as a context in which the state's positive obligations under that provision must be assessed.
Positive obligations under Article 9
The Court's analysis under Article 9 focused on the positive obligations incumbent upon Switzerland. The judgment records that the domestic authorities failed to provide the applicants with a substantive examination of their arguable grievances regarding access to a vegan diet in accordance with their ethical beliefs.
The Court found that Switzerland had a positive obligation stemming from Article 9 to address the applicants' requests in substance. By failing to do so, the domestic authorities had not struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. The judgment thus identifies a violation of Article 9 arising not from an outright refusal of a vegan diet per se, but from the failure to engage meaningfully with the applicants' requests in a manner consistent with the Convention's requirements.
The judgment's framing of the violation in terms of positive obligations reflects the Court's recognition that states bear a duty to take reasonable steps to accommodate sincerely held beliefs of individuals in their custody, and that this duty requires at minimum a genuine substantive examination of the individual's claim.
The right to an effective remedy under Article 13
The Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9. The judgment records that Article 13 was found applicable in the circumstances of the case.
The core finding under Article 13 was that the applicants faced a practical impossibility of obtaining the administrative decisions necessary for their claims under Article 9 to be examined on the merits. The domestic authorities had considered the applicants to lack a sufficient legal interest within the meaning of the relevant domestic law, which prevented their complaints from receiving substantive judicial scrutiny.
The Court characterised this approach as excessively formalistic. The judgment states that the remedy available to the applicants was ineffective in practice due to the way in which the domestic authorities had applied domestic law. This finding underscores the principle that the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 requires not merely the formal existence of a legal avenue, but that such an avenue be accessible and capable of providing genuine redress in the circumstances of the individual case.
Third-party interventions and broader context
The case attracted the participation of three third-party interveners: the Vegan Society, Vegan Australia, and the Criminal Law Research Center of the Free University of Brussels. Each was granted leave by the President of the Section to submit written comments. The judgment does not set out the substance of those interventions in the portion of the text provided, but their participation reflects the broader institutional and societal interest in the legal questions raised by the case.
The judgment was deliberated in private on 27 January and 16 June 2026, and adopted on the latter date. It will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention and may be subject to editorial revision. The case was heard by a Chamber of the Fifth Section composed of seven judges, with Kateřina Šimáčková serving as President.
Conclusion
The judgment in G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland represents a significant development in the Court's treatment of ethical veganism under the Convention. By confirming that veganism can constitute a belief of sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to engage Article 9, and by identifying violations of both that provision and Article 13, the Court has clarified the obligations of member states towards individuals in state custody who hold such beliefs.
The violations found were grounded in the domestic authorities' failure to examine the applicants' requests in substance and in the excessively formalistic application of domestic procedural law that rendered available remedies ineffective in practice. The judgment does not establish an absolute right to a vegan diet in detention or psychiatric care, but it does require that requests founded on sincerely held ethical beliefs receive genuine substantive consideration, and that effective domestic remedies be available for individuals to pursue such claims.
Institutions responsible for the management of detention facilities and involuntary care settings within Council of Europe member states may wish to consider the implications of this judgment for their own procedural frameworks and dietary provision policies, in consultation with appropriate legal advisers.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF G.K. AND A.S. v. SWITZERLAND - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications