## Facts

- Fouzia Dakir, a Belgian Muslim, chose at age sixteen to wear the niqab in public in accordance with her religious beliefs.
- She stated she would remove the veil when necessary for identification by authorities.
- In 2008, several Belgian municipalities in the Vesdre police district adopted or amended by-laws prohibiting in public places clothing that conceals the face.
- Dakir claimed the by-laws effectively prevented her from wearing the niqab in public and interfered with her private life and religious practice.
- She sought annulment of the municipal by-law(s) before Belgium’s Conseil d’État, arguing the ban lacked a legitimate aim and targeted Islamic dress; her challenge was unsuccessful.
- She applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging violations of Articles 8, 9, 10, 14, 6 § 1, and 13; the Court proceeded on the communicated complaints and considered third-party interventions.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal ban on face-covering clothing in public places unjustifiably interfered with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 (private life) and Article 9 (freedom to manifest religion).
2. Whether the measure was discriminatory contrary to Article 14 when read with Articles 8 and 9.
3. Whether the applicant lacked a fair hearing and effective remedy in domestic proceedings, contrary to Articles 6 § 1 and 13.

## Decision

- The Court held unanimously that there was no violation of Article 8.
- The Court held unanimously that there was no violation of Article 9.
- The Court found no separate violation of Article 14 in light of its analysis under Articles 8 and 9.
- The Court held unanimously that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 or Article 13 because the Conseil d’État procedure was capable in principle of reviewing legality and Convention compatibility.
- The Court accepted that the ban interfered with Articles 8 and 9, but found it justified as proportionate to the aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others through preservation of the conditions of “living together.”

## Legal Principles

- A ban on face-covering in public may constitute an interference with private life (Article 8) and religious manifestation (Article 9), requiring justification under the respective limitation clauses.
- “Living together” may be treated as an aspect of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and can qualify as a legitimate aim under Articles 8 § 2 and 9 § 2.
- States have a wide margin of appreciation on contested social-policy questions, and the Court’s review is subsidiary, focusing on whether the measure is proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society.”
- Facial neutrality and general wording (covering all face-concealing clothing rather than religious dress alone) can support a finding that the interference is proportionate and that Article 14 is not separately violated.
- Access to a domestic body competent to review administrative measures for legality and Convention compatibility can satisfy Articles 6 § 1 and 13.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Belgium’s municipal face-covering bans, concluding that the interference with private life and religious manifestation was proportionate to protecting others’ rights through “living together,” and that domestic review before the Conseil d’État provided an effective remedy and fair hearing.


Dakir v. Belgium, App. No. 4619/12 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2017)