EHRM, 01-07-2014, nr. 43835/11

The conference of Presidents of the National Assembly, on 23 June 2009, established a parliamentary commission comprising members from various parties with the task of drafting a report on â€~the wearing of the full-face veil on national territory’.

The report of some 200 pages, deposited on 26 January 2010, described and analysed the existing situation. It showed, in particular, that the wearing of the full-face veil was a recent phenomenon in France (almost no women wore it before 2000) and that about 1,900 women were concerned by the end of 2009 (of whom about 270 were living in French overseas administrative areas); nine out of ten were under 40, two-thirds were French nationals and one in four were converts to Islam. According to the report, the wearing of this clothing existed before the advent of Islam and did not have the nature of a religious precept, but stemmed from a radical affirmation of individuals in search of identity in society and from the action of extremist fundamentalist movements. The report further indicated that the phenomenon was non-existent in countries of central and eastern Europe, specifically mentioning the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Latvia and Germany. It was not therefore a matter of debate in those countries, unlike the situation in Sweden and Denmark, where the wearing of such veils nevertheless remained marginal. Moreover, the question of a general ban had been discussed in the Netherlands and in Belgium (a Law “to prohibit the wearing of any clothing which totally or principally conceals the face” has since been enacted in Belgium, on 1 June 2011; see paragraphs 40-41 below). The report was also critical of the situation in the United Kingdom, where it pointed to a sectarian trend driven by radical and fundamental Muslim groups, who were taking advantage of a legal system that was very protective of individual fundamental rights and freedoms in order to obtain recognition of rights that were specifically applicable to residents of Muslim faith or origin.

The report went on to criticise “a practice at odds with the values of the Republic”,as expressed in the maxim “liberty, equality, fraternity”. It emphasised that, going beyond mere incompatibility with secularism, the full-face veil was an infringement of the principle of liberty, because it was a symbol of a form of subservience and, by its very existence, negated both the principle of gender equality and that of the equal dignity of human beings. The report further found that the full-face veil represented a denial of fraternity, constituting the negation of contact with others and a flagrant infringement of the French principle of living together (le “vivre ensemble”).

The report, thus finding it necessary to “release women from the subservience of the full-face veil”, advocated a three-pronged course of action: to convince, protect women and envisage a ban. It made the following four proposals: first, to adopt a resolution reasserting Republican values and condemning as contrary to such values the wearing of the full-face veil; secondly, to initiate a general survey of the phenomena of amalgamation, discrimination and rejection of others on account of their origins or faith, and of the conditions of fair representation of spiritual diversity; thirdly, to reinforce actions of awareness and education in mutual respect and diversity and the generalising of mediation mechanisms; and fourthly, to enact legislation guaranteeing the protection of women who were victims of duress, which would strengthen the position of public officials confronted with this phenomenon and curb such practices. The report emphasised that among both the parliamentary commission's members and those of the political formations represented in Parliament, there was no unanimous support for the enactment of a law introducing a general and absolute ban on the wearing of the full-face veil in public places.

In the meantime, on 21 January 2010, the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme – CNCDH) had issued an “opinion on the wearing of the full-face veil”, stating that it was not in favour of a law introducing a general and absolute ban. It took the view, in particular, that the principle of secularism alone could not serve as a basis for such a general measure, since it was not for the State to determine whether or not a given matter fell within the realm of religion, and that public order could justify a prohibition only if it were limited in space and time. The opinion also emphasised the risk of stigmatising Muslims and pointed out that a general prohibition could be detrimental to women, in particular because those who were made to wear the full-face veil would additionally become deprived of access to public areas.

That being said, the CNCDH observed that support for women who were subjected to any kind of violence had to be a political priority; it advocated, in order to combat any form of obscurantism, encouraging the promotion of a culture of dialogue, openness and moderation, with a view to fostering better knowledge of religions and the principles of the Republic; it called for the strengthening of civic education courses – including education and training in human rights – at all levels, for both men and women; it sought the strict application of the principles of secularism and neutrality in public services, and the application of existing legislation; and it expressed the wish that, in parallel, sociological and statistical studies should be carried out in order to monitor the evolution of the wearing of the full-face veil.

On 29 January 2010 the Prime Minister asked the Conseil d’État to carry out a study on “the legal grounds for a ban on the full veil” which would be “as wide and as effective as possible”..

The Conseil d’État thus completed its “study on the possible legal grounds for banning the full veil”, of which the report was adopted by the Plenary General Assembly on 25 March 2010. It interpreted the question put to it as follows: can we envisage a legal ban, for particular reasons and within prescribed limits, on the wearing of the full veil as such, or are we required to address the more general issue of concealment of the face, with the wearing of this garment being just one example?

The Conseil d’État first observed that existing legislation already addressed this issue in various ways, whether through provisions whose effect was to ban the wearing of the full veil itself by certain persons and in certain circumstances, by imposing occasional restrictions on concealment of the face for public order reasons, or by envisaging criminal sanctions for the instigators of such practices. It noted, however, that the relevant provisions were varied in nature and that comparable democracies were like France in not having national legislation imposing a general ban on such practices in public places. In view of this finding, the Conseil d’État questioned the legal and practical viability of prohibiting the wearing of the full veil in public places, having regard to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the Convention and European Union law. It found it impossible to recommend a ban on the full veil alone, as a garment representing values that were incompatible with those of the Republic, in that such a ban would be legally weak and difficult to apply in practice. It observed in particular that the principle of gender equality was not intended to be applicable to the individual person, i.e. to an individual's exercise of personal freedom. It further took the view that a less specific ban on the deliberate concealment of the face, based mainly on public order considerations and interpreted more or less broadly, could not legally apply without distinction to the whole of the public space under prevailing constitutional and Convention case-law.

However, the Conseil d’État believed that, in the present state of the law, it would be possible to enact more coherent legislation, which would be binding and restrictive, comprising two types of provision: first, stipulating that it was forbidden to wear any garment or accessory that had the effect of hiding the face in such a way as to preclude identification, either to safeguard public order where it was under threat, or where identification appeared necessary for access to or movement within certain places, or for the purpose of certain formalities; secondly, strengthening enforcement measures that would particularly be directed against individuals who forced others to hide their faces and thus conceal their identity in public places.

On 11 May 2010 the National Assembly adopted, by a unanimous vote, a Resolution “on attachment to respect for Republic values at a time when they are being undermined by the development of radical practices”.

In this Resolution the National Assembly made the following statements:

The draft of a law prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places was deposited in May 2010, the Government having considered that the other options (mediation and parliamentary resolution) were not sufficiently effective and that a ban limited to certain places or circumstances would not have been an appropriate means of safeguarding the principles in question and would have been difficult to implement (Bill prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places, impact assessment, May 2010)

The bill contained an “explanatory memorandum”, which reads as follows:

The Bill was supported by the National Assembly's Delegation on the rights of women and equal opportunities (information report registered on 23 June 2010, no. 2646) and the Standing Committee on Legislation (Commission des lois) issued a favourable report (registered on 23 June 2010, no. 2648).

The Law was passed by the National Assembly on 13 July 2010 with 335 votes in favour, one vote against and three abstentions, and by the Senate on 14 September 2010, with 246 votes in favour and one abstention. After the Constitutional Council's decision of 7 October 2010 finding that the Law was compliant with the Constitution (see paragraph 30 below), it was enacted on 11 October 2010.

In the applicant’s submission, she was born in Pakistan and her family belongs to a Sunni cultural tradition in which it is customary and respectful for women to wear a full-face veil in public. She claimed to have sustained a serious interference with the exercise of her rights under Article 9 of the Convention, as the Law of 11 October 2010, which sought to prohibit Muslim women from wearing the full-face veil in public places, prevented her from manifesting her faith, from living by it and from observing it in public. She added that, while the interference was “prescribed by law”, it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims listed in the second paragraph of that provision and was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

The applicant began by observing that this interference could not be said to have the legitimate aim of “public safety” as it was not a measure intended to address specific safety concerns in places of high risk such as airports, but a blanket ban applying to almost all public places. As to the Government’s argument that it sought to ensure respect for the minimum requirements of life in society, because the reciprocal exposure of faces was fundamental in French society, the applicant objected that it failed to take into account the cultural practices of minorities which did not necessarily share this philosophy or the fact that there were forms of communication other than visual, and that in any event this bore no relation to the idea of imposing criminal sanctions to prevent people from veiling their faces in public. She submitted, moreover, that the Government’s assertion that for women to cover their faces was incompatible with the principle of gender equality was simplistic. She argued that, according to a well-established feminist position, the wearing of the veil often denoted women’s emancipation, self-assertion and participation in society, and that, as far as she was concerned, it was not a question of pleasing men but of satisfying herself and her conscience. Furthermore, it could not be maintained that because of wearing the veil the women concerned were denied the right to exist as individuals in public, when in the majority of cases it was worn voluntarily and without any proselytising motive. She added that other member States with a large Muslim population did not prohibit the wearing of the full-face veil in public places. She also found it ironic that an abstract idea of gender equality could run counter to the profoundly personal choice of women who decided to wear veils, and contended that imposing legal sanctions exacerbated the inequality that was supposed to be addressed. Lastly, she took the view that in claiming that the prohibition had the legitimate aim of “respect for human dignity” the Government were justifying the measure by the abstract assumption, based on stereotyping and chauvinistic logic, that women who wore veils were “effaced”.

Under the heading of “necessity”, the applicant argued that a truly free society was one which could accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, tastes, pursuits, customs and codes of conduct, and that it was not for the State to determine the validity of religious beliefs. In her view, the prohibition on wearing the full-face veil in public and the risk of criminal sanctions sent out a sectarian message and discouraged the women concerned from socialising. She pointed out that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 28, had found that any regulation of clothing that women could wear in public might breach the principle of equal rights for men and women, and in its decision in Raihon Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan (cited above), had observed that the freedom to manifest one's religion encompassed the right to wear clothes or attire in public which were in conformity with the individual;s faith or religion. She further observed that, whilst the Law of 11 October 2010 had been passed almost unanimously, the above-cited cases of Dudgeon, Norris and Modinos showed that a measure might have wide political support and yet not be “necessary in a democratic society”.

Moreover, even supposing that the aims pursued were legitimate, the impugned prohibition could not fulfil that condition where they might be achieved by less restrictive means. Thus, to address the questions of public safety, it would be sufficient to implement identity checks at high-risk locations, as in the situations examined by the Court in the cases of Phull v. France ((dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005 I) and El Morsli v. France ((dec.), no. 15585/06, 4 March 2008). As to the aim of guaranteeing respect for human dignity, it was still necessary to weigh up the competing interests: those of members of the public who disapproved of the wearing of the veil; and those of the women in question who, like the applicant, were forced to choose between acting in a manner contrary to their beliefs, staying at home or breaking the law. The rights of the latter were much more seriously affected than those of the former. In the applicant's view, if it were considered, as the Government argued, that it was necessary to criminalise not only the coercion of another into veiling but also the fact of voluntarily wearing the veil, on the grounds that women might be reluctant to denounce those who coerced them and that constraint might be diffuse in nature, that would mean disregarding the position or motivation of women who chose to cover their faces and therefore excluding any examination of proportionality. Such an attitude was not only paternalistic, but it also reflected an intention to punish the very women who were supposed to be protected from patriarchal pressure. Lastly, the applicant found irrelevant the Government's comment that freedom to dress according to one's wishes remained very broad in France and that the ban did not apply in places of worship open to the public, pointing out that her beliefs precisely required her to cover her face and that it should be possible to manifest one's religion in public, not only in places of worship.

In the applicant's submission, the fact that she was prevented by the Law of 11 October 2010 from wearing the full-face veil in public also entailed a violation of her right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention. Her private life was affected for three reasons. First, because her ability to wear the full-face veil was an important part of her social and cultural identity. Secondly because, as the Court had pointed out in its Von Hannover v. Germany judgment (no. 59320/00, §§ 50 and 69, ECHR 2004 VI), there was a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which might fall within the scope of private life, and the protection of private life under Article 8 extended beyond the private family circle and also included a social dimension. The third reason was that if she went out of the house wearing the full-face veil she would probably encounter hostility and would expose herself to criminal sanctions. Thus, being obliged to remove it when she went out and only being able to wear it at home “as if she were a prisoner”, she was forced to adopt a “Jekyll and Hyde personality”.

Furthermore, referring back in essence to her observations on Article 9 of the Convention, the applicant argued that the interference did not pursue any of the legitimate aims enumerated in the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention. She added that, even supposing that one of those aims could be accepted, the impugned interference could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society, especially as the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 8 were, in this connection, stricter than those of the second paragraph of Article 9.

The applicant further argued that the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public, which undoubtedly targeted the burqa, generated discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention on grounds of sex, religion and ethnic origin, to the detriment of Muslim women who, like her, wore the full-face veil. In her view this was indirect discrimination between Muslim women whose beliefs required them to wear the full-face veil and other Muslim women, and also between them and Muslim men. The exception provided for by the Law of 11 October 2010, according to which the ban did not apply if the clothing was worn in the context of “festivities or artistic or traditional events” was also, in her view, discriminatory, in that it created an advantage for the Christian majority: it allowed Christians to wear in public clothing that concealed their face in the context of Christian festivities or celebrations (Catholic religious processions, carnivals or rituals, such as dressing up as Santa Claus) whereas Muslim women who wished to wear the full-face veil in public remained bound by the ban even during the month of Ramadan.

The Government admitted that, even though it was formulated in general terms, the ban introduced by the Law of 11 October 2010 could be seen as a “limitation”, within the meaning of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention, on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs. They argued, however, that the limitation pursued legitimate aims and that it was necessary, in a democratic society, for the fulfilment of those aims.

In the Government’s submission, the first of those aims was to ensure “public safety”. The ban satisfied the need to identify individuals so as to prevent danger for the safety of persons and property and to combat identity fraud. The second of those aims concerned the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others” by ensuring “respect for the minimum set of values of an open and democratic society”. The Government mentioned three values in this connection. Firstly, the observance of the minimum requirements of life in society. In the Government’s submission, the face plays a significant role in human interaction: more so than any other part of the body, the face expresses the existence of the individual as a unique person, and reflects one’s shared humanity with the interlocutor, at the same time as one’s otherness. The effect of concealing one’s face in public places is to break social ties and to manifest a refusal of the principle of “living together” (le “vivre ensemble”). The Government further argued that the ban sought to protect equality between men and women, as to consider that women, solely on the ground that they were women, must conceal their faces in public places, amounted to denying them the right to exist as individuals and to reserving the expression of their individuality to the private family space or to an exclusively female space. Lastly, it was a matter of respect for human dignity, since the women who wore such clothing were therefore “effaced” from the public space. In the Government’s view, whether such “effacement” was desired or suffered, it was necessarily dehumanising and could hardly be regarded as consistent with human dignity

On the question of gender equality, the Government expressed surprise at the applicant’s statements to the effect that the practice of wearing the full-face veil often denoted the woman’s emancipation, self-assertion and participation in society, and they did not agree with the highly positive presentation of that practice by the applicant and the intervening non-governmental organisations. They took note of the study reports presented by two of the third-party interveners, showing that women who wore or used to wear the full-face veil did so voluntarily and that those who had given up the practice had done so mainly as a result of public hostility. They observed, however, that those studies were based on only a small sample group of women (twenty-seven in one case, thirty-two in the other) recruited using the “snowball method”. That method was not very reliable, as it consisted in targeting various people fitting the subject profile and then, through them, reaching a greater number of people who generally shared the same views. They concluded that the reports in question provided only a very partial view of reality and that their scientific relevance had to be viewed with caution.

As regards the necessity and proportionality of the limitation, the Government argued that the Law of 11 October 2010 had been passed both in the National Assembly and the Senate by the unanimous vote of those cast (less one vote), following a wide democratic consultation involving civil society. They pointed out that the ban in issue was extremely limited in terms of its subject matter, as only concealment of the face was prohibited, irrespective of the reason, and everyone remained free, subject to that sole restriction, to wear clothing expressing a religious belief in public. They added that the Law was necessary for the defence of the principles underlying its enactment. They indicated in this connection that to restrict sanctions only to those coercing someone else to cover their face would not have been sufficiently effective because the women concerned might have hesitated to report it and coercion could always be diffuse in nature. They further pointed out that the Court afforded States a wide margin of appreciation when it came to striking a balance between competing private and public interests, or where a private interest was in conflict with other rights secured by the Convention (they referred to Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007‑I). They further took the view that the penalties stipulated were light – a mere fine of 150 euros (EUR) or a citizenship course. They noted that both the Constitutional Council and the Court of Cassation had recognised the “necessity” of the Law.

As to Article 8 of the Convention, the Government indicated that they were not convinced that this provision applied, since the ban on clothing designed to cover the face concerned only public places and it could not be considered that an individual's physical integrity or privacy were at stake. Pointing out that the applicant's arguments related, in any event, more to her freedom to manifest her beliefs or religion and therefore to Article 9, they referred back to the arguments they had set out under that head as to the justification for the interference and its proportionality.

Lastly, the Government found the applicant “particularly ill-placed to consider herself a victim of discrimination on account of her sex”, as one of the essential objectives of the impugned Law was to combat that type of discrimination as a result of women being effaced from public space through the wearing of the full-face veil. In their view, the assertion that the Law had been based on a stereotype whereby Muslim women were submissive was unfounded and caricatural: firstly, because the Law did not target Muslim women; and secondly, because the social effacement manifested by the wearing of the burqa or niqab was “hardly compatible with the affirmation of a social existence”. In their opinion, it was not possible to infer from Article 14 of the Convention a right to place oneself in a position of discrimination. As to the contention that one of the effects of the Law would be to dissuade the women concerned from going to public places and to confine them at home, it was particularly futile in the instant case since the applicant claimed that she wore this clothing only voluntarily and occasionally.

The Government added that the Law did not create any discrimination against Muslim women either. They observed in this connection that the practice of wearing the full-face veil was a recent development, quite uncommon in France, and that it had been criticised on many occasions by high-profile Muslims. The prohibition in fact applied regardless of whether or not the reason for concealing the face was religious, and regardless of the sex of the individual. Lastly, they pointed out that the fact that certain individuals who wished to adopt behaviour which they justified by their beliefs, whether or not religious, were prevented from doing so by a statutory prohibition could not in itself be considered discriminatory where the prohibition had a reasonable basis and was proportionate to the aim pursued. They referred on this point to their previous arguments.

The intervening Government stated that the wearing of the full-face veil was not required by the Koran but corresponded to a minority custom from the Arabian peninsula.

They further indicated that a law prohibiting the wearing of any “clothing entirely or substantially concealing the face” had been passed in Belgium on 1 June 2011 and had come into force on 23 July 2011. Two constitutional challenges lodged against it had been dismissed by the Belgian Constitutional Court in a judgment of 6 December 2012, finding – subject to one reservation concerning places of worship – that the wearing of such clothing posed a safety issue, was an obstacle to the right of women to equality and dignity, and, more fundamentally, undermined the very essence of the principle of living together. They took the view that no one was entitled to claim, on the basis of individual or religious freedom, the power to decide when and in what circumstances they would agree to uncover their faces in a public place. It was necessarily a matter for the public authorities to assess public-safety requirements. They further noted that the issue of women’s right to equality and dignity had been raised by both parties, and acknowledged that the wearing of the full-face veil was not necessarily an expression of subservience to men. They considered, however, that the right to isolation had its limits, that codes of clothing which prevailed in our societies were the product of societal consensus and the result of a balanced compromise between our individual freedom and our codes of interaction within society, and that those who wore clothing concealing their face were signalling to the majority that they did not wish to take an active part in society and were thus dehumanised. In their view, one of the values forming the basis on which a democratic society functioned was the possibility for individuals to take part in an active exchange.

The intervening Government pointed out that the Belgian legislature had sought to defend a model of society in which the individual outweighed any philosophical, cultural or religious attachments so as to encourage full integration and enable citizens to share a common heritage of fundamental values such as democracy, gender equality and the separation of Church and State. They referred to the judgment of the Belgian Constitutional Court, which had found that, where the consequence of concealing the face was to prevent a person’s facial individualisation, even though such individualisation was a fundamental condition associated with his or her very essence, the prohibition on wearing clothing concealing the face in places accessible to the public, even if it were the expression of a religious belief, met a compelling social need in a democratic society. They added that the Belgian legislature had opted for the lightest criminal sanction (a fine) and observed – again referring to the Constitutional Court’s judgment – that if certain women stayed at home so as not to go out with their faces uncovered, that was the result of their own choice and not of an illegitimate constraint imposed on them by the Law. Lastly, they were of the view that the French and Belgian Laws were not discriminatory, as they did not specifically target the full-face veil and applied to any person who wore items concealing the face in public, whether a man or a woman, and whether for a religious or any other reason.

This third-party intervener observed that the right to wear clothing with a religious connotation was protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in terms of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom of expression. It added that the Covenant provided for limitations similar to those in Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, and argued that public international law required the provisions of both instruments to be interpreted in a similar manner. It thus called on the Court to take into account the Human Rights Committee's General Comments nos. 22, 27 and 34, together with its jurisprudence (see paragraph 38 above).

The intervener added that the right to freedom from discrimination was guaranteed by all the international and regional instruments for the protection of fundamental rights, that a homogeneous interpretation was also required in that connection, and that, in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), States had an obligation to take effective measures to put an end to discriminatory practices. It further referred to the Human Rights Committee's General Comments nos. 22 and 28. It also pointed to the risk of intersecting discrimination: women might experience a distinct form of discrimination due to the intersection of sex with other factors such as religion, and such discrimination might express itself, in particular, in the form of stereotyping of subgroups of women. It also observed that restrictions on the wearing of headscarves or veils might impair the right to work, the right to education and the right to equal protection of the law, and might contribute to acts of harassment and violence.

In the third party's submission, it is an expression of gender-based and religion-based stereotyping to assume that women who wear certain forms of dress do so only under coercion; ending discrimination would require a far more nuanced approach.

This third-party intervener observed that the wearing of religious dress or symbols was covered by the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion and thought. It also referred to the Human Rights Committee's General Comment no. 28. It further mentioned that Committee's decision in Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan (cited above), where it had been found that the freedom to manifest one's religion encompassed the right to wear clothes or attire in public which were deemed to be in conformity with the individual's faith or religion, and that to prevent a person from wearing religious clothing might constitute a violation of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It referred also to the Committee's General Comment no. 34 on freedom of opinion and expression. It added that, in her 2006 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had laid down a set of guidelines for considering the necessity and proportionality of restrictions on wearing religious dress or symbols and recommended that the following questions be answered by the administration or judiciary when making such an assessment: is the restriction in question appropriate having regard to the legitimate interest that it seeks to protect, is it the least restrictive, has it involved a balancing of the competing interests, is it likely to promote religious intolerance and does it avoid stigmatising any particular religious community?

The intervener further observed that, as noted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in his interim 2011 report, the prohibition on sex-based discrimination was often invoked in favour of banning the full-face veil, whereas such prohibitions might lead to intersectional discrimination against Muslim women. In the intervener's view, this could be counterproductive as it might lead to the confinement of the women concerned in the home and to their exclusion from public life and marginalisation, and might expose Muslim women to physical violence and verbal attacks. It further observed that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular, had recently recommended that member States should not opt for general bans on the wearing of the full-face veil in public.

According to the intervener, international standards on the right to freedom of expression, to freedom of opinion and religion and to equal treatment and non-discrimination did not support general prohibitions on covering the face in public.

The intervener emphasised that the French and Belgian Laws prohibiting concealment of the face in public had been passed on the basis of the assumption that women who wore the full-face veil did so for the most part under coercion, showed that they did not wish to interact with others in society and represented a threat to public safety. It referred to empirical research that had been carried out in Belgium among twenty-seven women who wore or used to wear the full-face veil (see E. Brems, Y. Janssens, K. Lecoyer, S. Ouald Chaib and V. Vandersteen, Wearing the Face Veil in Belgium: Views and Experiences of 27 Women Living in Belgium Concerning the Islamic Full Face Veil and the Belgian Ban on Face Covering), together with research carried out in France by the Open Society Foundations (see paragraph 104 below) and in the Netherlands by Professor A. Moors, which all indicated that this assumption was erroneous.

In the intervener's submission, this research showed that the ban did not actually serve its stated purpose: the women concerned avoided going out, leading to their isolation and the deterioration of their social life and autonomy, and cases of aggression against them had increased. It further found the ban disproportionate, because public space was defined very broadly, safety concerns might be addressed by the occasional duty to identify oneself by showing one's face, and in today's society there were many forms of social interaction in which people did not have to see each other's face.

In the intervener's view, in addition to constituting a disproportionate interference with freedom of religion, the ban generated indirect and intersectional discrimination on grounds of religion and sex, endorsed stereotypes and disregarded the fact that veiled women made up a vulnerable minority group which required particular attention.

Lastly, the intervener asked the Court to examine the present case in the light of the rise in Islamophobia in various European countries. It took the view that the adoption and enforcement of a blanket ban on face covering in public were all the more harmful as this had been accompanied by political rhetoric specifically targeting women wearing an Islamic face veil, thus reinforcing negative stereotypes and Islamophobia.

This intervener observed that, although the Law of 11 October 2010 was framed in neutral terms, its aim was to prohibit the wearing of the burqa and it applied to all public places, with the result that the women concerned faced the agonising choice between remaining at home or removing their veil. It pointed out that the origins of the Convention were firmly rooted in the atrocities of the Second World War, that it was the horrors perpetrated against the Jews that had provided the impetus for embedding the right to freedom of religion in the list of fundamental rights, and that since then there had been other crimes against humanity where religion had been at least a contributory factor. It added that there was a close relationship between religion and race.

The intervener further emphasised that general rules regulating clothing worn by women in public might involve a violation not only of a number of fundamental rights but also of international and regional instruments such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. As regards the Convention, the intervener was of the view that Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 applied in the present case. It submitted that the threefold justification in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill had not been convincing. It further argued that the ban and the debate surrounding it contributed to stigmatising Muslims and fuelled racist attitudes towards them.

In conclusion, the intervener observed that, whilst many feminists, in particular, regarded the full-face veil as demeaning to women, undermining of their dignity, and the result of patriarchy, others saw it as a symbol of their faith. In its view, these controversies were not resolved by imprisoning at home those women who felt compelled to wear it, on pain of sanctions. This was not liberating for women and in all likelihood would encourage Islamophobia.

This third-party intervener pointed out that the ban on the full-face veil had been criticised within the Council of Europe and that only France and Belgium had adopted such a blanket measure. It emphasised that, even though the French and Belgian Laws were neutral in their wording, their legislative history showed that the intent was to target specifically the niqab and the burqa.

The intervener further noted that the aim of the French Law was to preserve public safety, gender equality and secularism. It asserted in this connection that reasoning based on public order might easily disguise intolerance when freedom of religion was at stake. Referring in particular to the Court's judgment in Palau-Martinez v. France (no. 64927/01, § 43, ECHR 2003‑XII), it added that States might rely on this notion to justify interference with the exercise of a Convention right only if they could show that there was concrete evidence of a breach of public order. As regards the protection of gender equality, it noted that such an objective was based on the supposition that women who wore the veil were coerced into doing so and thus disadvantaged, whereas this was not shown by any of the evidence examined in the legislative process.

The intervener further referred to the report of a survey conducted in France by the Open Society Foundations involving thirty-two women who wore the full-face veil, entitled Unveiling the Truth: Why 32 Muslim Women Wear the Full-Face Veil in France and published in April 2011. It indicated that the women interviewed were not coerced into wearing the veil, that many had decided to wear it despite opposition from their families, that one third did not wear it as a permanent and daily practice, and that the majority maintained active social lives. The report also revealed that the ban had contributed to discontent among these women and had reduced their autonomy, and that the public discourse accompanying it had encouraged verbal abuse and physical attacks against them by members of the public. The intervener also submitted a follow-up report published in September 2013. It noted that, according to the latter, the majority of the women interviewed continued to wear the full-face veil as an expression of their religious beliefs. It added that the report showed the significant impact of the ban on their personal and family lives. The intervener further noted the report's finding that all women interviewed had described a decline in their personal safety since the ban, with incidents of public harassment and physical assaults resulting from a climate in which the public appeared emboldened to act against women wearing the full-face veil.

In conclusion, the intervener argued that there was a European consensus against bans on the wearing of the full-face veil in public. It further stressed the fact that blanket bans were disproportionate where less intrusive measures might be possible, that public order justifications must be supported by concrete evidence, that measures introduced to promote equality must be objectively and reasonably justified and limited in time, and that measures seeking to promote secularism must be strictly necessary.

The ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face, in public places, raises questions in terms of the right to respect for private life (Article 8 of the Convention) of women who wish to wear the full-face veil for reasons related to their beliefs, and in terms of their freedom to manifest those beliefs (Article 9 of the Convention).

The Court is thus of the view that personal choices as to an individual's desired appearance, whether in public or in private places, relate to the expression of his or her personality and thus fall within the notion of private life. It has found to this effect previously as regards a haircut (see Popa v. Romania(dec.), no. 4233/09, §§ 32-33, 18 June 2013; see also the decision of the European Commission on Human Rights in Sutter v. Switzerland, no. 8209/78, 1 March 1979). It considers, like the Commission (see, in particular, the decisions in McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, 15 May 1980, § 83, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, and Kara v. the United Kingdom, no. 36528/97, 22 October 1998), that this is also true for a choice of clothing. A measure emanating from a public authority which restricts a choice of this kind will therefore, in principle, constitute an interference with the exercise of the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see the Kara decision, cited above). Consequently, the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public places, pursuant to the Law of 11 October 2010, falls under Article 8 of the Convention.

That being said, in so far as that ban is criticised by individuals who, like the applicant, complain that they are consequently prevented from wearing in public places clothing that the practice of their religion requires them to wear, it mainly raises an issue with regard to the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs (see, in particular, Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41135/98, § 35, 23 February 2010). The fact that this is a minority practice and appears to be contested (see paragraphs 56 and 85 above) is of no relevance in this connection.

The Court will thus examine this part of the application under both Article 8 and Article 9, but with emphasis on the second of those provisions.

The Court notes that the applicant complained of indirect discrimination. It observes in this connection that, as a Muslim woman who for religious reasons wishes to wear the full-face veil in public, she belongs to a category of individuals who are particularly exposed to the ban in question and to the sanctions for which it provides.

The Court reiterates that a general policy or measure that has disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group may be considered discriminatory even where it is not specifically aimed at that group and there is no discriminatory intent (see, among other authorities, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§Â 175 and 184-85, ECHR 2007-IV). This is only the case, however, if such policy or measure has no “objective and reasonable” justification, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (ibid., § 196). In the present case, while it may be considered that the ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 has specific negative effects on the situation of Muslim women who, for religious reasons, wish to wear the full-face veil in public, this measure has an objective and reasonable justification for the reasons indicated previously (see paragraphs 144-59 above).

Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8 or Article 9 of the Convention.

The Court is of the view that no issue arises under Article 10 of the Convention, taken separately or together with Article 14 of the Convention, that is separate from those that it has examined under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, taken separately and together with Article 14 of the Convention.