The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the ban imposed by the Flemish Community on wearing any visible religious symbols during educational activities is in keeping with the principles of freedom of religion. The ruling follows a decision by the Constitutional Court in Belgium, which based its judgement on neutrality principles.The Mikyas and Others v. Belgium case was brought forward by three Muslim girls, who protested that they were unable to wear the Islamic headscarf in their secondary school due to this prohibition.
The prohibition, which was broadened in 2009 to encompass all school activities (with the exception of specific ethic classes), was objected to by the parents of the girls who, at the outset of the proceedings, were the legal representatives of their daughters. They lodged their claim with the ECHR, alleging potential violations of several provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 9, which protects the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Nonetheless, the ECHR rejected the claim, upholding the Flemish regulation on the grounds that it was not discriminatory towards religion, but rather enforced a general prohibition on visible symbols. The ECHR considered the potential vulnerability of school pupils who might experience feelings of exclusion or pressure, hence validating the ruling as a means of securing the freedom and rights of others.
The ECHR ruling also took into account two prior cases in Belgium. The Belgian Constitutional Court admitted under Article 24 of the Belgian constitution that parents are guaranteed freedom of school choice. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court declared the regulation enacted by the Council of the Flemish Community as acceptable based on constitutional neutrality. These precedents lend weight to the Court’s ruling.
In past cases, such as when the Court of Justice of the European Union declared it acceptable to ban the wearing of headscarves for employees if justified by proportionality, necessity, and legitimate aim, the question of limiting the display of symbolic items continues to animate discussions within the European legal community.
Framing the current development, it should be noted that the original article can be found here.