HR director, Brighton and Sussex University and practising Christian, Graham White, has welcomed the result of the case and called it a "wake-up call" for employers.
He told HR magazine: "I think it's a victory for equality and religious freedom but it's a shame that it took Europe to tell our employers to follow common sense.
"There should be more done to allow people to express their faith and to have this stance of ,'you do it or not', is quite a draconian attitude to have in the modern workplace."
The Court ruled that the airline infringed check-in clerk Nadia Eweida's (pictured) basic entitlement to freedom of religion when it attempted to ban her from wearing a small crucifix around her neck while on duty.
Ewedia, 60, of London, was forced out of her job in 2006 after refusing to remove her chain, and eventually took her case to Europe after losing an employment tribunal.
Speaking after the ruling, Eweida said: "I feel vindicated and that Christians have been vindicated here and in Europe as well.
"It's very important, it means Christians can move around freely in their workplace without recrimination or decimation. They can display their faith symbols on a par with other colleagues who are allowed to display their faith symbols."
Chris Fisher, employment partner at law firm, Mayer Brown told HR magazine: "Religion and belief discrimination is one of the most sensitive and emotive areas of employment law. The rulings of the ECHR are significant because, as far as possible, UK legislation must be read and given effect in a way, which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
"Employers are likely to initially welcome the result as it makes clear that they have some flexibility when setting their own rules and policies at work even if those rules impact on an employee's beliefs.
"However, given the result in Ms Eweida's case, they will now need to be more alive to the issues of balancing the rights of employees wishing to express their beliefs at work. This could obviously create both operational difficulties for employers and potential workplace tensions where employees have differing views."
Fisher added: "Arguably, one of the most significant aspects of the decision is that it is no longer clear that only manifestations which are a 'requirement' of a religion are to be protected - it having been a factor in Ms Eweida's case that wearing the Christian cross was a personal choice rather than something prescribed by the Christian faith."
International law firm, Allen & Overy's employment partner, Sarah Henchoz said: "The ECHR's decision in the Eweida case is likely to be welcomed by many UK employees, some of whom are under the misconception that all religions are not treated equally."
