header-logo header-logo

02 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Burqa & niqab ban upheld

ECHR rules that French law does not violate human rights

The French ban on the full-face veil is lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has held.

In S.A.S v France App no 43835/11, the court ruled by a majority that there had been no violation of Art 8 (right to respect for private and family life) or Art 9 (right to respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion). It unanimously held there had been no violation of Art 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The court emphasised that respect for the conditions of “living together” was a legitimate aim, and that the state had a wide margin of appreciation. It noted that the sanctions for wearing the veil were small and that the ban was not against religious garments but solely against concealing the face. It dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Art 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) and Art 11 (freedom of assembly).

S.A.S. is a French national and devout Muslim. She wears the burqa (a full-body garment with a mesh over the face) and niqab (a full-face veil with an opening only for the eyes). Under French legislation in force from April 2011, it is prohibited for anyone to conceal their face in a public place. 

Barrister Tony Muman, of 43 Temple Row, who acted for S.A.S, says the judgment is “disappointing” but that the court did “reject the French government’s suggestion that her Art 8 and 9 rights were not engaged”. 

“They also reject the government’s justification based on gender equality and public safety measures and reminds us of the importance of tolerance and pluralism. Ultimately the court has taken the view (not unanimously) that the state has a wide margin of appreciation and that the ban was a proportionate measure to the aims of ‘living together’ and ‘protecting the rights and freedoms of others’.” 

 

Issue: 7613 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll