## Facts

- The French Parliament enacted a statute prohibiting wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in “public space.”
- “Public space” was defined to include public roads and premises open to the public or used for a public service.
- The statute created exceptions for coverings prescribed by law, justified by medical or professional reasons, or worn for sports, festivities, or artistic/traditional events.
- Violations were punishable by a second-category fine (up to €150).
- The Presidents of the National Assembly and the Senate referred the enacted statute to the French Constitutional Council for pre-promulgation constitutional review; they raised no specific constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether a general ban on face-concealing clothing in public spaces violates constitutionally protected liberty.
2. Whether the ban impermissibly restricts freedom of religion and belief, including religious dress.
3. Whether the ban unjustifiably infringes equality or other protected rights, or is justified by public order and the “minimum requirements of life in society.”

## Decision

- The Constitutional Council held Articles 1–3 constitutional, subject to an interpretive reservation.
- The Council accepted the legislature’s objectives of protecting public security and ensuring the “minimum requirements of life in society.”
- The Council concluded the statute’s generally applicable terms and relatively minor penalty produced a balance that was not manifestly disproportionate to protected rights.
- Reservation: the ban may not be applied in places of worship open to the public, because doing so would violate constitutional protection of religious freedom.

## Legal Principles

- The legislature may restrict individual liberty and religious manifestation to protect public order, so long as the restriction reflects a balance that is not manifestly disproportionate.
- A generally applicable public-order measure may be upheld even if it has foreseeable effects on religious practice, provided it is framed in neutral terms and proportionate in scope and sanction.
- Freedom of religion limits application of public-order restrictions in places of worship open to the public; applying the face-covering ban there is unconstitutional.
- Constitutional review may sustain legislation without identified defects, but can impose binding interpretive reservations to secure constitutional compliance.

## Conclusion

The Constitutional Council sustained the public face-covering prohibition as a proportionate public-order measure, while narrowing its reach by requiring that it not be enforced in places of worship open to the public to protect religious freedom.


Act Prohibiting the Concealing of the Face in Public, Decision No. 2010-613 DC (Fr. Const. Council 2010)