British Airways employee Nadia Eweida had argued the airline's denial of her wearing a cross contravened articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit religious discrimination and allow "freedom of thought, conscience and religion".
Lawyers for the Government, which contested the claim, argued her rights were only protected in private.
But judges today ruled there had been a violation of article nine (freedom of religion), by five votes to two.
After being sent home in September 2006 for displaying the silver cross around her neck, Ms Eweida returned to work in customer services at Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 in February 2007 after BA changed its uniform policy on visible items of jewellery.
Barrister Adam Wagner, who specialises in human rights, has played down the wider significance of BA worker Nadia Eweida's victory at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):
So a narrow, fact-based win for one Christian applicant in Strasbourg but no major points of principle from Strasbourg http://t.co/cS9OphRY
Important point about judgments is that European Court of Human Rights has not criticised UK anti-discrimination laws http://t.co/cS9OphRY
European Court of Human Rights didn't rule religious symbols trumped corporate image. Wasn't convinced corporate image harmed in this case
He added that the ECHR judgment now means if an employer wants to prevent an employee from wearing a religious symbol for corporate image purposes, it must prove that its image has been negatively affected.
Cross-wearing British Airways employee Nadia Eweida, one of four Christians who say they were discriminated against in the workplace, has told Daybreak she is "very hopeful" of a win at the European Court of Human Rights, but is prepared to appeal if the judgment goes against them.
The 60-year-old check-in clerk from London said it was "very unfair" that she was prevented from wearing a visible cross necklace while at work.
Speaking ahead of the 9:00am judgment, Ms Eweida said: "I'm very hopeful of a win ... there is a saying: you get what you ask for. ... If we lose today, there is a possibilty we can appeal."
She also said some employers took advantage of those with Christian faith.
"It's a religion of love, that you turn your cheek," Ms Eweida added. "It's taken as weakness, so you're pounded on."
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights will rule today on a landmark case brought by four British Christians.
They claim they have suffered discrimination at work because of their faith.
- The four argue the actions of their employers contravened articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit religious discrimination and allow "freedom of thought, conscience and religion"
- Government lawyers argue their rights are only protected in private
We believe any further accommodation of religious conscience in UK equality law would create a damaging hierarchy of rights, with religion at the top.
These are landmark cases and we have waited a long time to get to this point.
At stake is not only the future shape of Christian involvement in community life but the protection of important personal freedoms in a diverse society.
- Sixty-year-old British Airways employee Nadia Eweida, from London, says she was prevented from wearing a visible cross necklace
- Hospital nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, from Exeter, who also feels she was prevented from wearing a cross visibly around her neck
- Gary McFarlane, 51, a Bristol marriage counsellor, who claims he was sacked for saying that he might not be comfortable in giving sex therapy to homosexual couples
- Registrar Lillian Ladele, from London, who said she was disciplined by London's Islington Council for refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples
The European Court of Human Rights will give judgment today on cases involving four Christians who say they were discriminated against in the workplace.
Sixty-year-old British Airways employee Nadia Eweida, from London, says she was prevented from wearing a visible cross necklace.
It is hoped that success today will lead to an overhaul of the Equality Act and other diversity legislation.
Judgment will take place at 0900 UK time.
In January, Europe's human rights judges ruled that Britain's most dangerous and notorious criminals could be kept behind bars for the rest of their lives.
The judges ruled that condemning people to die in jail was not "grossly disproportionate".
They said that each case London's High Court had "decided that an all-life tariff was required following a fair and detailed consideration".
That ruling will now be tested by the court's Grand Chamber after the appeal of Douglas Vinter, who stabbed his wife to death in 2008, was granted.
Vinter's appeal means the cases of Jeremy Bamber, who killed five family members in August 1985, and Peter Moore, who killed four gay men in 1995, will also be considered.