Germany / Federal Constitutional Court Karlsruhe / 1 BvR 471/10 and 1 BvR 11181/10

Country

Germany

Title

Germany / Federal Constitutional Court Karlsruhe / 1 BvR 471/10 and 1 BvR 11181/10

View full Case

Year

2015

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Incident(s) concerned/related

Harassment

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

Key facts of the case

(I) A Northrhine-Westphalia (NW) social education worker for conflict mediation (German born in a Turkish family) has been wearing a headscarf at work since 1997. A 2006 amendment to NW school law lead to the school prohibiting headscarves at work: she objected and received written warnings. She filed a court case to void the written warnings; courts at two instances rejected her claim.
(II) A teacher in NW wore a headscarf during class. In 2006, the school demanded her to stop wearing it, she refused, received written warnings and was fired. She appealed the decision in court but lost twice.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The amended NW school law refers to Christian and occidental cultural values; this constitutes an unequal treatment on grounds of religion. The previous court decisions did not evaluate a potential concrete risk for the school situation caused by the scarf; as a general rule without consideration of the specific circumstances, the law and the court rulings impaired constitutional rights of both petitioners.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

Negative freedom of religion versus constitutional right for practicing religion. Risk for conflicts in the school situation: Infrigement of constitutional rights by a general assumption instead of consideration of the concrete circumstances in each case.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

Cancellation of all previous rulings in both cases. Annulment of § 57 Abs. 4 Satz 3 SchulG NW (amended NW school law) due to its incompatibility with Art. 3 Abs. 3 (no discrimination) and Art. 33 Abs. 3 (access to public functions irrespective of religious confession, no disadvantage due to religion) German Basic Law.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"The constitutional right of freedom of religion guarantees as well the freedom of teachers in public non-confessional schools to comply with dressing requirements on religious grounds like wearing an islamic scarf.
A general ban of religious demonstration (as in §57 (4) NW school law) is disproportionate. A appropriate balance between the freedom of religious expression by teachers versus the neutrality of the school and the negative freedom of religion requires at least a concrete risk for the school situation in the individual case."

"Der Schutz des Grundrechts auf Glaubens- und Bekenntnisfreiheit (Art. 4 Abs. 1 und 2 GG) gewährleistet auch Lehrkräften in der öffentlichen bekenntnisoffenen Gemeinschaftsschule die Freiheit, einem aus religiösen Gründen als verpflichtend verstandenen Bedeckungsgebot zu genügen, wie dies etwa durch das Tragen eines islamischen Kopftuchs der Fall sein kann.
Ein landesweites gesetzliches Verbot religiöser Bekundungen (hier: nach § 57 Abs. 4 SchulG NW) durch das äußere Erscheinungsbild schon wegen der bloß abstrakten Eignung zur Begründung einer Gefahr für den Schulfrieden oder die staatliche Neutralität in einer öffentlichen bekenntnisoffenen Gemeinschaftsschule ist unverhältnismäßig, wenn dieses Verhalten nachvollziehbar auf ein als verpflichtend verstandenes religiöses Gebot zurückzuführen ist. Ein angemessener Ausgleich der verfassungsrechtlich verankerten Positionen - der Glaubensfreiheit der Lehrkräfte, der negativen Glaubens- und Bekenntnisfreiheit der Schülerinnen und Schüler sowie der Eltern, des Elterngrundrechts und des staatlichen Erziehungsauftrags - erfordert eine einschränkende Auslegung der Verbotsnorm, nach der zumindest eine hinreichend konkrete Gefahr für die Schutzgüter vorliegen muss."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.