Reconciliation of public service, freedom of religion
The Court then analyzes the values represented by the headscarf. Now, for the Court, the scarf is "imposed on women," and it follows a prescription "difficult to reconcile with the principle of gender equality". But first, it seems quite embarrassing that the Court gives an interpretation of a religious symbol that is well known, precisely, it is highly contested. Is the headscarf imposed by the Koran? Is it really a scarf the woman a sign of submission? One can only regret that, once again, as in the Valsamis judgment the Court does not seek to analyze the applicant's arguments.
Finally, the Court grants a proselyte effect sign. After Kokkinakis, Larrissis the Dahlab stop disassociates the behavior of the person and the effect of the sign. The simple headscarf is indeed never qualified as such as proselytizing. But again, a weakness in the reasoning is, it seems, crying: wear a religious symbol is not already -he action? Nevertheless, the Court highlights the low age of the children, demonstrating their weakness. This weakness then gives here to sign one proselyte effect of "bad quality", "abusive".
This reasoning of the European Court, Mr Nicolas Chauvin draws it's a challenge to secularism "French" since it restricts the possibilities of banning religious signs. This analysis, however it seems that is wrong, given the subsequent jurisprudence as European (Kurtulmus judgment) that French.
[...] European case law, it simply notes that "in most countries, only the religious holidays of the majority of the population are declared days statutory holidays." The residual liberty lies primarily on closed public or semi closed as the military, prisons, schools, hospitals . According to the Commission, "unlike the state itself to any person within its jurisdiction the churches are not required to ensure the freedom of religion of their priests and their faithful It was a case of a Danish pastor invited by the minister, under penalty of sanctions, to abandon certain practices baptism. There sometimes facilitating certain beliefs demonstrations by the neutral public service to users. [...]
[...] " Similarly, noted an opposite inadmissibility decision to applicant judge removed from office for having "violated his judicial reputation" and "abused his position to proselytize." But as has been seen previously in the Larissis case the Court still operates a proportionality test. Odent The case of the State Council of 15 October 2003, moreover, takes the principle of proportionality. Reconciliation of public service neutrality and guarantee of freedom of religion. Despite the severity against "officials", it remains a residual freedom of certain manifestations of the religious beliefs of employees in the public service. Regarding absences related to the regular performance of worship or observance, al European case law still remains severe, and since the case X . [...]
[...] These facilitations are sometimes needed, usually because of promiscuity and the long period during which users and agents will "cohabit". It is generally detainees, sick and students. Very particular users, prisoners have the right to manifest their religion, but of course, that freedom yields to safety and considerations. But above all, for granting certain facilities, it must first religion of the prisoner is recognized. This religion must be mentioned in the records of the prison, the statement to be, moreover, formal. [...]
[...] This reasoning of the European Court, Mr Nicolas Chauvin draws it's a challenge to secularism "French" since it restricts the possibilities of banning religious signs. This analysis, however it seems that is wrong, given the subsequent jurisprudence as European (Kurtulmus judgment) that French. The active proselytizing, he is synonymous with manipulation of the function. In principle, the only dress constitutes in itself a proselytizing act independently of other features acts or words of such behavior. Yet from the perspective of the French administrative court, it is appropriate to be surprised, in light of the case law on dress, understanding shown towards certain religious congregations working in prisons. [...]
[...] Keller against Germany 4 March 1998: school administration, Scientology, respect for the religious convictions of parents. Tsavachidis against Greece of 28 October 1997: freedom of association, Jehovah's witnesses, legal opening of a place of worship. [...]
using our reader.