Judgment Lachiri v. Belgium - exclusion from courtroom of woman wearing the Islamic headscarf (hijab)

CtEDO 2025-05-09 0,87

ES 1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom to manifest her religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, as a result of the prohibition to wear a hijab with military uniform (see Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECH

CtEDO 2017-12-05 0,87

, regardless of religious, sexual, national or other affiliation. Indeed, this is a duty of all those who visit the State Court in whatever capacity, as explained in more detail in Rule 20 of the House Rules of the Judicial Institutions of

CtEDO 2004-06-29 0,87

also said that students had to be able to work and pursue their education together in a calm, tolerant and mutually supportive atmosphere without being deflected from that goal by signs of religious affiliation. It found that, irrespective

CtEDO 2001-02-15 0,86

, it should be observed that the appellant’s main argument is that her clothing, consisting of items that may be purchased at the hypermarket, should be treated not as a religious symbol but in the same way as any other perfectly inoffensiv

CtEDO 2014-12-16 0,86

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect f