‘Living Together’ or Freedom of Religion and Belief: Ban on Face Covers by European States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30641/ham.2025.16.165-176Keywords:
religion, freedom, European, face, coverAbstract
Many European States introduced general or specific bans on face covers and religious symbols in public schools, universities and public places. The ban on religious symbols and face covers in public places and educational institutions has escalated the tensions, disbelief and mistrust between adherents of different religions and beliefs. This paper applies a doctrinal legal research methodology mixed with desk research, analyzing international human rights instruments and important landmark judicial precedents to assess the legal scope and limitations on freedom of religion and belief and its consequences. Although limitations to freedom of religion and belief are permitted in human rights law, European States justified the limitations on the basis of ‘living together’ contrary to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The acceptance of the conditionality of ‘living together’ by the European Court of Human Rights set a disturbing precedent and it is applied in different societies in enforcing the majoritarian view and undermining the rights of minorities. Although the Human Rights Committee determined that Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be strictly interpreted and the term ‘living together’ is a vague concept and made recommendations, the European State parties have not taken any action to implement the recommendations. Since the Human Rights Committee has no power to enforce the recommendations, the mere essence of the treaty is negated, and it provides a dangerous precedent for other States around the globe to follow introducing limitations on the freedom of religion and belief.
Downloads
References
Act No 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010 Prohibiting the Concealing of the Face in Public, Unofficial Translation (2010).
Affaire Belcacemi et Oussar c. Belgique (Requête No 37798/13) (European Court of Human Rights 2017).
Affaire Lachiri c. Belgium (Requête No 3413/09) (European Court of Human Rights 2018).
Al Jazeera. “Swiss Vote to Outlaw Facial Coverings in ‘Burqa Ban’ Poll.” March 2021.
Azoulai, Loic. ‘Living Together’ in Europe’s Polarized Societies Navigating the ECtHR and CJEU Case Law. Law Working Paper 2024/18. European University Institute, 2024.
Belgian Law of 1 June 2011 (2011).
Bikramjit Singh v. France. “Communication No. 1852/2008: Human Rights Committee: Views Adopted by the Committee at Its 106th Session, 15 October–2 November 2012.” 2012.
Case of Dakir v Belgium (Application No. 4619/12) (European Court of Human Rights 2017).
Case of S.A.S. v France (Application No. 43835/11) (European Court of Human Rights 2014).
Civil Code (1967).
European Convention on Human Rights, European Treaty Series, No. 5 (1950).
Gesley, Jenny. “Switzerland: Burqa Ban Approved by Voters.” Library of Congress, April 2021.
Gunatilleke, Gehan. “Criteria and Constraints: The Human Rights Committee’s Test on Limiting the Freedom of Religion or Belief.” Religion & Human Rights 15, nos. 1–2 (2020): 20–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-BJA10002
International Center for Advocates against Discrimination. When Discrimination Masquerades as Equality: The Impact of France’s Ban of Religious Attire in Public Schools. 2014.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 999, p. 171 (1966).
Lægaard, Sune. “Burqa Ban, Freedom of Religion and ‘Living Together.’” Human Rights Review 16, no. 3 (2015): 203–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-015-0362-6
LOI N° 2004-228 Du 15 Mars 2004 Encadrant, En Application Du Principe de Laïcité, Le Port de Signes Ou de Tenues Manifestant Une Appartenance Religieuse Dans Les Écoles, Collèges et Lycées Publics. Accessed November 20, 2025.
Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia (Application No. 72881/01) (The European Court of Human Rights 2007).
Open Society Justice Initiative. Briefing Paper: Restrictions on Muslim Women’s Dress in the 28 EU Member States. 2018.
Paul, Kaushik. “Banning Islamic Veils: Is Social Cohesion (or Living Together) a Valid Argument?” Journal of Law and Religion 39, no. 1 (2024): 34–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2024.2
Pew Research Centre. Restriction on Women’s Religious Attire. 2016.
Raihon Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan. “UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 931/2000.” 2004.
Trispiotis, Ilias. “Two Interpretations of ‘Living Together’ in European Human Rights Law.” Cambridge Law Journal 75, no. 3 (2016): 580–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197316000568
TRTWorld and agencies. “Lifting of Hijab Ban in Southern Belgium Offers Hope for Muslim Women.” 2021.
UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion). CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4. 1993.
UN Human Rights Council. Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Belgium. 2021.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights of Women Wearing the Veil in Western Europe. 2019.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sajeed Fahurdeen

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copyright of each article is retained by the author(s). Authors agree to grant the first publication rights to Jurnal HAM. The Journal embeds a simple machine-readable Creative Commons license under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Thus, papers in this Journal can be used freely for non-commercial purposes with the acknowledgment of authorship and publication in this journal.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License












