Critically discuss the extent to which the European Court of Human Rights prioritises freedom of expression and freedom of religion when the rights conflict with the rights of others.

The introduction may set out the issues and how the essay will focus on certain areas rather than take a broad approach.

Structure the essay to answer the question in a clear manner. If the essay will focus on certain areas, then the introduction should explain why these areas were chosen and note (possibly in a footnote) the other areas that may also be used to illustrate the question but will not be detailed in the essay.

The essay should:

• Explain the rights and why these rights are of particular importance in a democratic society and so arguably should be prioritised (J. S. Mill, etc.)
• Counter argument  - the essay should discuss the reasoning for limiting these rights (J S Mill etc.) and note that expression and religious belief may interfere with the rights of others such as family and private life, right not to be ill-treated, etc.
• What has been the approach of the ECtHR? Illustrate with examples where the Court has been faced with this issue – cases where it has accepted the state justification for the limitation of the right or found that the right to religion has not been manifested  (hate speech cases, privacy, employment, education religious symbols in public places as examples). Has the Court adopted a reasoned or ad hoc approach?  Analyse the use of proportionality and margin of appreciation.

The essay should use the arguments of academics, relevant case law and reports.

Conclusion: This should bring the arguments together and evaluate the jurisprudence of the ECtHR in this area. Is there a clear, consistent approach by the Court? Does it apply the margin of appreciation principle clearly in each case? Generally, should there be greater or less limitation on these rights?