Did the European Court of Justice wage war on the headscarf?

The court justifies its decision by invoking the “neutrality” clause, which human rights activists have previously criticized for opening the “door to discrimination in employment on a large scale.”

A major EU court has ruled in favor of banning veiled women from the workplace, arguing that the ban does not constitute discrimination if it is part of broader restrictions that apply to all workers. Rights activists criticized the decision, describing it as a violation of "the freedom of choice, expression, belief, and (women's) bodily autonomy."

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) refers to the case of a woman who filed a complaint with the court against a company for rejecting her application for an internship after she refused to take off her headscarf in compliance with company policy. This is only the latest in a series of controversial rulings and laws that European Muslims say discriminate against them.

The company says it has a neutral rule that means no head coverings are allowed, whether that's a beanie, hoodie or headscarf. The woman took the case to the Belgian Labor Court, which in turn sought the opinion of the European Court of Justice.

The judges said, "The internal rule prohibiting the wearing of religious, philosophical or spiritual signs does not constitute direct discrimination if it is applied to all workers in a general and undifferentiated manner."

However, human rights activists and legal experts have pointed out gaps in the court's argument regarding "neutrality". According to Human Rights Watch, the logic of neutrality "has been used to justify similar bans in the public sector and this logic extends the ban to the private sector, opening the door to widespread discrimination in employment."

Senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, Hilary Margulies, wrote in June of last year while responding to similar rulings being heard by German courts: “The court's reasoning that allowing religious dress could harm a company's ability to operate relies on faulty logic. to the effect that the client's objections to employees who wear religious dress can be legitimate and take precedence over the rights of employees."

In its latest ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union states that “religion and belief” must be treated as a basis for discrimination in order to avoid undermining the general principle enshrined in EU law for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

But such legal decisions, referred to earlier, have already affected thousands of Muslim women across Europe.

For example, in Germany, many Muslim women quit teaching and civil service jobs where the court gave them a strict choice to remove their headscarves or give up their careers.

The ban on religious clothing and symbols for teachers and other civil servants in Germany has led to the abandonment of teaching jobs for many Muslim women.

In France, a woman who wears the niqab or burqa, which covers the entire face and body, in public faces a fine of 150 euros.

Last summer, the country's Supreme Administrative Court upheld an existing ban on women wearing the burkini, a one-piece swimsuit that covers the entire body, in public swimming pools.

Another French court ruling in 2014, banning face coverings, encouraged police to fine 600 Muslim women within three years. The ruling was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.

Similarly, many Muslim girls were denied their right to education when France passed a law in 2004 banning the wearing of the headscarf in public schools.

In its new ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union determines that the obligation of neutrality may end up with those "who adhere to a particular religion or belief at a particular disadvantage". In such cases, the ERU leaves the responsibility for delivering justice to the local courts.

In 2020, the Austrian Constitutional Court dealt a heavy blow to those who oppose headscarves. In its ruling, the court overturned a ban prohibiting girls up to the age of ten from wearing the headscarf at school. The court noted that the law clearly aims to marginalize Muslims.