SAS v France
A French law banning the wearing of face coverings in public, which prevented Muslim women from wearing the full face veil, did not breach articles 8 or 9, because it pursued the aim of living together.
Facts
A French Muslim woman, who wore the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious beliefs, complained about a French law of 2010 which prohibited the concealment of the face in public places, with exceptions. She said that she wore the veil voluntarily, and that the ban breached her rights to respect for private life and freedom of religion, and was discriminatory.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held, by a majority, that there had been no violation of articles 8 or 9. The court rejected the government's arguments based on public safety, which could be achieved by less restrictive means, and on gender equality and human dignity. However, the court accepted that the ban could be justified by the aim of ensuring the conditions of living together, because the face plays an important role in social interaction, and the state could take the view that concealment of the face in public undermined the minimum requirements of life in society. The state had a wide margin of appreciation on this question, on which there was no European consensus.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
