Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T12:46:54.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When the European Court of Human Rights encounters the face

A case-note on the burqa ban in France European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 1 July 2014, Case No. 43835/11, S.A.S. v France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

François-Xavier Millet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , September 2015 , pp. 408 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor of Public Law, University of the French West Indies, Researcher at CAGI-CRPLC (Guadeloupe) and IRDEIC (Toulouse).

References

1 On the different aspects of this issue, see Koussens, D. and Roy, O. (eds.), Quand la burqa passe à l’Ouest. Enjeux éthiques, politiques et juridiques (Presses universitaires de Rennes 2014)Google Scholar.

2 See in general Brennan, J., Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press 2012)Google Scholar. For a forerunner of libertarianism, in connection with the so-called harm principle, see Mill, J.S., On Liberty (Yale University Press 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See especially Taylor, C., Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge University Press 1989)Google Scholar. Also Sandel, M., Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press 1981)Google Scholar; Walzer, M., Spheres of Justice (Blackwell 1983)Google Scholar.

4 See in particular Pettit, P., Republicanism. A Theory of Freedom and Government (Clarendon Press 1997)Google Scholar; Pocock, J.G.A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton University Press 1975)Google Scholar; Skinner, Q., The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge University Press 1978)Google Scholar. For the French approach, see Nicolet, C., L’idée républicaine en France. Essai d’histoire critique (1789-1924) (Tel Gallimard 1995)Google Scholar; Spitz, J.F., Le moment républicain en France (Gallimard 1995)Google Scholar.

5 Phillips, A., ‘Feminism and Republicanism: Is this a Plausible Alliance?’ 8 Journal of Political Philosophy (2000) p. 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 ECtHR 1 July 2014, Case No. 43835/11, S.A.S. v France.

7 See Baubérot, J., Laïcité 1905/2005, entre passion et raison (Seuil 2004)Google Scholar; Pena-Ruiz, H., Dieu et Marianne. Philosophie de la laïcité (Presses universitaires de France 1999)Google Scholar. For a legal perspective, see Conseil d’Etat, Un siècle de laïcité (EDCE La Documentation française 2004).

8 Rapport d’information no. 2662 sur la pratique du voile intégral sur le territoire national (Assemblée nationale, 26 January 2010).

9 Avis sur le port du voile intégral (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme, 21 January 2010).

10 Etude relative aux possibilités juridiques d’interdiction du port du voile intégral (Conseil d’Etat, 25 March 2010).

11 Conseil constitutionnel 7 October 2010, Case No. 2010-613 DC.

12 Cour de cassation 5 March 2013, Case N° 12-808091.

13 ECtHR 23 September 1981, Case No. 7525/76, Dudgeon v UK.

14 ECtHR 26 October 1988, Case No. 10581/83, Norris v Ireland.

15 See, for instance, the Leyla Sahin v Turkey and Dogru v France cases. Providing an analysis of the philosophical motives that led the ECtHR to justify limitations of religious freedom either on public order grounds or/and on that of the protection of the rights of others, see Danchin, P. G., ‘Islam in the Secular Nomos of the European Court of Human Rights’ 32(4) Michigan Journal of International Law (2011) p. 663Google Scholar.

16 See Debray, R., Ce que nous voile le voile. La République et le sacré (Poche 2006)Google Scholar; Finkielkraut, A., L’identité malheureuse (Stock 2013)Google Scholar.

17 See S. Hennette-Vauchez, ‘La burqa, la femme, l’Etat. Réflexions inquiètes sur un débat actuel’ (2010) Raison publique (<www.raison-publique.fr/article317.html>, visited 27 August 2015); Mancini, S., ‘Patriarchy as the exclusive domain of the other: The veil controversy, false projection and cultural racism’ 10(2) Int J Constitutional Law (2012) p. 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, J., The Politics of the Veil (Princeton University Press 2010)Google Scholar.

18 See the interview of Elisabeth Badinter published by the newspaper Libération on 23 April 2003.

19 Conseil d’Etat 27 October 1995, Case No. 136727, Commune de Morsang sur Orge.

20 Cour constitutionnelle 6 December 2012, Case N° 145-2012.

21 See Hunter-Henin, M., ‘Why the French don’t like the burqa: laïcité, national identity and religious freedom’ 61(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2012) p. 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Schyff, G. Van der, Overbeeke, A., ‘Exercising Religious Freedom in the Public Space: A Comparative and European Convention Analysis of General Burqa Bans’ 7(3) EuConst (2011) p. 424Google Scholar.

22 See Baubérot, J., La laïcité falsifiée (La Découverte 2012)Google Scholar; Hennette-Vauchez, S. and Valentin, V., L’affaire Baby Loup ou la nouvelle laïcité (LGDJ-Lextenso 2014)Google Scholar.

23 ECtHR 15 February 2001, Case No. 42393/98, Dalhab v Switzerland.

24 ECtHR 10 November 2005, Case No. 44774/98, Leyla Sahin v Turkey.

25 ECtHR 24 January 2006, Case No. 65500/01, Kurtulmus v Turkey.

26 ECtHR 23 February 2010, Case No. 41135/98, Ahmet Arslan and Others v Turkey.

27 By the same token, the Conseil constitutionnel also eschewed mention of the principle of laïcité in its ruling on the law (supra, n. 11).

28 E. Levinas, Totality and Infinity. An Essay on Exteriority (Duquesne University Press 1969); E. Levinas, Ethics and Infinity. Conversations with Philippe Nemo (Duquesne University Press 1985). See also the entry dedicated to Levinas in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/>, visited 5 August 2015. Note that Levinas’ experience as a Jew during World War II undoubtedly shaped his view.

29 See for instance Laborde, C., ‘State paternalism and religious dress code’ 10(2) Int J Constitutional Law (2012) p. 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 See Sunstein, C. R., ‘Beyond the Republican Revival?’ 97 Yale Law Journal (1998) p. 1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 The US Republican approach differs from the French, inasmuch as it aims at reconciling the natural rights philosophy with the concept of the common good. While France is a ‘rational’ Republic, the United States is a natural rights Republic. See Tourkochoriti, I., ‘The Burqa Ban: Divergent Approaches to Freedom of Religion in France and in the USA’ 20(3) William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal (2012) p. 791Google Scholar.

32 See Laborde, C., Critical Republicanism. The Hijab Controversy in Political Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Laborde 2012, supra n. 28.

33 See Weiler, J.H.H., ‘Fundamental rights and fundamental boundaries: on the conflict of standards and values in the protection of human rights in the European legal space’, in The Constitution of Europe (Cambridge University Press 1999), p. 102Google Scholar.

34 Levinas 1969, supra, n. 28, p. 78.