Belgium / Constitutional Court / 81/2020

Country

Belgium

Title

Belgium / Constitutional Court / 81/2020

View full Case

Year

2020

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, June 04, 2020

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Constitutional Court (Grondwettelijk Hof)

Key facts of the case

A Brussels institute for higher education (college) prohibits in its internal regulations, among other things, the wearing of religious signs. Female Muslim students who wish to wear a headscarf initiate legal proceedings and the court formulates a preliminary question tot he Constitutional Court. The students claim that the ban on head scarfs is contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Decree of 12 December 2008.

Main reasoning/argumentation

According to the Court, a school has a legitimate reason to issue a ban on religious signs, including headscarves, when other students do not want to express their own convictions visibly. Such students must be protected from social pressure. The Court of Appeal also noted that a general prohibition is not mandatory. Institutions of higher education may therefore just as well allow the wearing of religious signs and opt for a policy of inclusive neutrality.

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

The Court is asked whether article 3 of the decree of 31 March 1994, in the interpretation that it allows a school to provide in the internal regulations a total ban on wearing insignia, jewellery or clothing that is political in nature, the expression of philosophical or religious opinions or beliefs and any headgear, in particular those expressing such opinions or beliefs, with a view to creating a totally neutral educational environment , is in violation of Articles 19, 23 and 24 of the Constitution, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the First Additional Protocol to that Convention.

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

The Constitutional Court decides that the ban on religious signs does not conflict with the duty of neutrality that applies in official education and does not violate religious freedom.

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

"Het verbod voor de studenten om juwelen, insignes en kledij, met inbegrip van hoofddeksels, te dragen die een politieke, filosofische of godsdienstige mening of strekking weergeven, wordt beschouwd als een maatregel die ertoe strekt, overeenkomstig het pedagogisch project dat gebaseerd is op een welbepaalde opvatting van neutraliteit van het officieel onderwijs, alle studenten te beschermen tegen de sociale druk die zou kunnen worden uitgeoefend door diegenen onder hen die hun mening en overtuiging zichtbaar maken."

"The ban on students wearing jewellery, badges and clothing, including headgear, which reflect a political, philosophical or religious opinion or intent is considered to be a measure which, in accordance with the pedagogical project based on a well-defined concept of neutrality in official education, aims to protect all students from the social pressure which could be exerted by those among them who make their opinions and beliefs visible."

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.