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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll