This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.

中文翻译：

---

《欧洲人权公约》第 9 条规定的思想、良心和宗教自由的升值幅度

本文分析了欧洲人权法院在第 9 条案件中制定评估幅度的方式。作为辅助性原则，欧洲公约缔约国享有一定的判断余地，但其范围根据特定原则而有所不同。通常可以肯定的是，当相称性检验适用时（例如关于改变宗教信仰、礼拜场所和建筑物、宗教团体的法律承认、囚犯的权利），当法院已经制定了具体的解释标准（例如关于国家干涉内部事务/宗教团体的解散或宗教雇主寻求的限制），或广泛的，当没有广泛的共识并且国家当局处于更好的位置来决定此事（例如征收教会税，工作场所、公共场所和教育机构的宗教自由）。本文评估了产生特定结果的理由和情况，以期提高各国的可预测性和一贯做法。