PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 4619/12) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Belgian national, Ms Fouzia Dakir (“the applicant”), on 22 December 2011.

The applicant was represented by Ms I. Wouters a lawyer practising in Brussels. The Belgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Tysebaert, Senior Adviser, Federal Justice Department.

The applicant complained that the ban on wearing in public places clothing designed to conceal the face deprived her of the possibility of wearing the full-face veil. She alleged a violation of Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. She alleged, further, that she had not had an effective remedy before the Conseil d’Etat (Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention).

On 9 July 2015 the Government were given notice of the above-mentioned complaints and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

The non-governmental organisation Liberty and the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University were given leave to submit written comments (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Dison.

The applicant stated that she was a Muslim and had decided, on her own initiative, to wear the niqab – a veil covering the face except for the eyes – in accordance with her religious beliefs. She said that she had taken the decision to wear the full-face veil when she was sixteen years old. She explained that her choice had been accepted by her family and friends and by her husband. She also stated that she had always agreed to remove her veil for identification purposes as required by the authorities, such as when issuing her identity card.

On 18 February 2008 the Vesdre district administrative authorities proposed an amendment to the district regulations regarding the wearing of the burqa in public thoroughfares and in public places ... .

The president of the police district invited the Verviers public prosecutor to express an opinion on that proposal. On 18 March 2008 the public prosecutor replied that he did not have any observations to make.

The municipal councils of the three municipalities belonging to the police district – the municipal council of Pepinster on 23 June 2008, Dison on 26 June 2008 and Verviers on 30 June 2008 – enacted the following provisions of the consolidated by-laws of the Vesdre police district, which differed, moreover, from the original proposal. “Article 113. Save where authorised by the mayor (Bourgmestre) of the municipality, wearing a mask or using any strategem whatsoever for the purposes of concealing personal identity shall be forbidden at all times, at any public meeting and in all public places and in public thoroughfares. ... Article 113bis. The wearing of clothing concealing the face shall be forbidden at all times and in all public places. However, a helmet, balaclava or other headgear may be worn where authorised by the legislation on the safety of workers or other legislation. ...

On 29 August 2008 the applicant lodged an application with the Conseil d’État for annulment of Article 113bis. She argued that the provision in question expressly targeted the Islamic veil, which she wore, and that the resulting ban constituted an interference with her rights guaranteed by Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention. She contended that the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim as the principle of secularism was not a constitutional principle and there could therefore be no blanket ban on wearing the veil. In any event, even supposing that the aim could be regarded as legitimate, the applicant maintained that the means were disproportionate in the absence of public disorder or threat of public disorder and thus of a pressing social need. In their memorial in reply of 18 April 2011, the three municipalities submitted that the impugned provision sought to guarantee public safety and not to regulate or restrict the exercise of any form of worship.

The auditeur at the Conseil d’État delivered a detailed 26-page report in which he concluded that in his opinion the applicant’s above-mentioned submission was well founded because public safety could not serve as a basis for a ban on wearing the full-face veil in all places generally open to the public, as no specific public disorder was associated with it as such.

In judgment no. 213.849 of 15 June 2011, the Conseil d’État, refusing to follow the opinion of the auditeur, dismissed the application for annulment of the provision ... .

That judgment was served on the applicant on 23 June 2011.