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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll