## Facts

- France enacted Law No. 2010-1192, effective April 11, 2011, prohibiting concealment of the face in public places, with limited exceptions (including certain contexts such as places of worship).
- Violations were punishable by a fine up to €150 and/or mandatory citizenship instruction concerning republican values.
- The applicant, a French Muslim woman, wished to wear the niqab or burqa in public by personal choice, not continuously, and stated she was not coerced.
- She accepted removing the veil for identity or security checks but argued the law forced her either to abstain from dress she associated with her faith and convictions or to risk sanctions.
- The application was filed the day the law took effect and proceeded to the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber without prior domestic merits litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether the public face-covering ban interfered with the applicant’s rights under Articles 8 (private life) and 9 (manifestation of religion), and if so whether the interference was prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to achieve legitimate aims.
2. Whether “public safety” and/or protection of the “rights and freedoms of others” could justify the ban, including whether “living together” could qualify under that head.
3. Whether the ban constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 8 and 9, given its practical impact on Muslim women wearing the full-face veil.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held, by 15 votes to 2, that there was no violation of Article 8.
- The Grand Chamber held, by 15 votes to 2, that there was no violation of Article 9.
- The Grand Chamber held that there was no violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 8 and 9.
- The Court treated the law as an interference with Articles 8 and 9 but found it prescribed by law and justified.
- The Court accepted “public safety” as a legitimate aim but rejected gender equality and human dignity as independent grounds for the ban.
- The Court accepted protection of the “rights and freedoms of others” as a legitimate aim, interpreting it to include safeguarding conditions of “living together.”
- Dissenting judges would have found violations of Articles 8 and 9, criticizing “living together” as too vague and warning of exclusionary effects on a small minority.

## Legal Principles

- Personal appearance choices may fall within “private life” under Article 8; restrictions on wearing religious dress in public may interfere with Article 9’s protection of manifesting religion.
- An interference with Articles 8 and 9 may be upheld if it is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society.
- “Living together,” understood as maintaining minimum requirements for social interaction in public space, may be treated as part of protecting the “rights and freedoms of others,” but the permitted limitations under Article 9(2) remain exhaustive and narrowly construed.
- In assessing necessity and proportionality on sensitive questions of social policy and national identity, the Court may afford a wide margin of appreciation, including where European state practice is divided.
- A formally neutral rule with disparate effects on a religious group does not violate Article 14 if the Court finds an objective and reasonable justification within the accepted aims and no sufficient showing of impermissible discriminatory intent.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld France’s general public face-covering ban, finding that although it interfered with private-life and religious-manifestation rights, it was justified within a wide margin of appreciation as necessary to protect the rights of others through the concept of “living together,” and it was not unlawfully discriminatory despite its disproportionate impact on certain Muslim women.


S.A.S. v. France, 2014 Eur. Ct. H.R. 695 (2014)