We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2016
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of Europe have recently recognised “living together” as a legitimate dimension of the rights of others that could justify limitations on various European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights, including the rights to freedom of religion and respect for private life. This article argues that the important, yet still unexplored in human rights law, idea of “living together” stems from the republican ideal of fraternity and supplements the distinctive links between democratic principles and rigorous human rights protection. Even so, its justifiability as a limitation ground depends on which conception of the idea is compatible with core values and functions served by human rights under the Convention. This article distinguishes between two main interpretations of “living together”, grounded on responsibility and conformity. It is argued that, in cases touching on our expressive conduct in public, including cases on the wearing of full-face veils, a conformity conception of “living together” sits uneasily both with firmly established case law of the ECtHR and with certain key functions of rights, such as the exclusion of moralistic majoritarian preferences as grounds for coercive prohibitions.
1 See Conseil d'Etat, Etude Relative aux Possibilités Juridiques d'Interdiction du Port du Voile Intégral, 30 March 2010; Brems, E., “Face Veil Bans in the European Court of Human Rights: The Importance of Empirical Findings” (2014) 22 J.L. & Pol'y 517 Google Scholar, at 535.
2 S.A.S. v France (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber).
3 Ibid., at para. [122].
4 The term “necessary in a democratic society” reflects the familiar terminology of the Convention for the third stage of the proportionality test; see e.g. Articles 8(2), 9(2) and 10(2) ECHR.
5 Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Resolution 2076: Freedom of Religion and Living Together in a Democratic Society, 30 September 2015 (33rd Sitting).
6 Adrian, M., Religious Freedom at Risk: The EU, French Schools, and Why the Veil Was Banned (Heidelberg 2016), 71–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yusuf, H., “Supporting ‘Living Together’ or Forced Assimilation?” (2014) 3 International Human Rights Law Review 277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Berry, “S.A.S. v France: Does Anything Remain of the Right to Manifest Religion?”, EJIL: Talk!, 2 July 2014; E. Howard, “S.A.S. v France: Living Together or Increased Social Division?”, EJIL: Talk!, 7 July 2014.
7 Brems, “Face Veil Bans”, pp. 534–38.
8 Marshall, J., “ S.A.S. v France: Burqa Bans and the Control or Empowerment of Identities” (2015) 15 H.R.L.R. 377 Google Scholar, at 385.
9 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Nussberger and Jäderblom, at [13]–[14].
10 In accordance with the historical emphasis on peaceful coexistence that underlies how European states are dealing with religion in political life. See Lilla, M., The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West (New York 2008), 296–310 Google Scholar.
11 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [11].
12 Ibid., at para. [122].
13 C. Ruet, “L'Interdiction du Voile Intégral dans l'Espace Public devant la Cour Européenne: La Voie Étroite d'un Équilibre”, Revue Des Droits De L'Homme, 12 August 2014. Also J. Maher, “S.A.S. v France in Context: The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and Protection of Minorities”, Oxford Human Rights Hub Blog, 18 July 2014.
14 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [154].
15 Bjorge, E., Domestic Application of the ECHR: The Courts as Faithful Trustees (Oxford 2015), 180–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saul, M., “The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments” (2015) 15 H.R.L.R. 745 Google Scholar; Legg, A., The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (Oxford 2012), 69–144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Letsas, G., “Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation” (2006) 26 O.J.L.S. 705 Google Scholar.
16 In a substantive form, the margin of appreciation is the other side of the principle of proportionality. See Bjorge, Domestic Application of the ECHR, p. 180.
17 On the various different meanings of “better placed”, see Legg, The Margin of Appreciation, pp. 75–79; Lewis, J., “The European Ceiling on Human Rights” (2007) P.L. 720 Google Scholar, at 737–38.
18 Letsas, “Two Concepts”, p. 721. This structural use of the margin of appreciation is also called “deferential review”. See Gerards, J., “How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights” (2013) 11 I•CON 466 Google Scholar.
19 Otto-Preminger v Austria (Application no. 13470/97), Judgment of 20 September 1994; Wingrove v United Kingdom (Application no. 17419/90), Judgment of 25 November 1996; I.A. v Turkey (Application no. 42571/98), Judgment of 13 September 2005. Also Trispiotis, I., “The Duty to Respect Religious Feelings: Insights from European Human Rights Law” (2013) 19 C.J.E.L. 499 Google Scholar.
20 E., “Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards” (1999) 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 843 Google Scholar.
21 Letsas, “Two Concepts”, p. 731; Kyritsis, D., “Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine” (2014) 34 O.J.L.S. 395 Google Scholar; Möller, K., “Balancing and the Structure of Constitutional Rights” (2007) 5 I•CON 453 Google Scholar. The content of different theories of deference or proportionality could also turn on the purpose of judicial review more generally. See Waldron, J., Law and Disagreement (New York 1999), 211–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Möller, K., The Global Model of Constitutional Rights (Oxford 2012), 99–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But note that the relationship between proportionality and the margin of appreciation is not directly relevant to the present discussion because the ECtHR is using the margin of appreciation in a structural sense.
22 Greer, S., “Constitutionalizing Adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights” (2003) 23 O.J.L.S. 405 Google Scholar, at 408–15; Letsas, G., A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford 2007), 37–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Möller, K., “Two Conceptions of Positive Liberty: Towards an Autonomy-Based Theory of Constitutional Rights” (2009) 29 O.J.L.S. 757 Google Scholar.
24 Dworkin, R., Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, MA 2011), 332–39Google Scholar.
25 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [11].
26 Ibid., at paras. [12]–[13].
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., at para. [12].
29 Law no. 2010–1192 of 11 October 2010, s. 1.
30 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [69]–[74].
31 Ibid., at paras. [102]–[105].
32 Ibid., at para. [114].
33 Ibid., at para. [116].
34 Ibid., at para. [119].
35 S.O. Chaib and L. Peroni, “S.A.S. v. France: Missed Opportunity to Do Full Justice to Women Wearing a Face Veil”, Strasbourg Observers, 3 July 2014. Also M. Foblets and K. Alidadi (eds.), Summary Report on the Religare Project (European Commission 2013), 24.
36 Dahlab v Switzerland (Application no. 42393/98), Judgment of 15 February 2001 (inadmissible).
37 Leyla Şahin v Turkey (Application no. 44774/98), Judgment of 10 November 2005 (Grand Chamber).
38 Marshall, J., “Conditions for Freedom? European Human Rights Law and the Islamic Headscarf Debate” (2008) 30 H.R.Q. 631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, C., “The ‘Islamic Scarf’ in the European Court of Human Rights” (2006) 7 Melbourne Journal of International Law 52 Google Scholar, at 71–73.
39 Peroni, L., “Religion and Culture in the Discourse of the European Court of Human Rights: The Risks of Stereotyping and Naturalising” (2014) 10 Int.J.L.C. 195 Google Scholar, at 201–06.
40 Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Resolution 1743: Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe, 23 June 2010 (23rd Sitting), at [16].
41 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [120].
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., at para. [153].
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid., at paras. [25], [141].
46 Ibid., at paras. [121]–[122].
47 Ibid., at para. [141].
48 Ibid., at para. [156].
49 Trispiotis, I., “Discrimination and Civil Partnerships: Taking ‘Legal’ out of Legal Recognition” (2014) 14 H.R.L.R. 343 Google Scholar, at 348–51; Letsas, G., “Strasbourg's Interpretive Ethic: Lessons for the International Lawyer” (2010) 21 E.J.I.L. 509 Google Scholar, at 527–28; Helfer, L.R., “Consensus, Coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights” (1993) 26 Cornell Int'l L.J. 133 Google Scholar.
50 Foblets and Alidadi, Summary Report on the Religare Project, p. 24.
51 On the Belgian ban, see L. Peroni, S.O. Ouald-Chaib and S. Smet, “Would a Niqab and Burqa Ban Pass the Strasbourg Test?”, Strasbourg Observers blog, 4 May 2010.
52 At the time of writing this article, a complaint about the Belgian ban on full-face veils in public is under consideration by the ECtHR. See Belkacemi and Oussar v Belgium (Application no. 37798/13), communicated to the Belgian Government on 9 June 2015.
53 Amnesty International, Choice and Prejudice; Discrimination against Muslims in Europe (London 2012), 92–94 Google Scholar. Also Brems, –E., “Equality Problems in Multicultural Human Rights Claims: The Example of the Belgian ‘Burqa Ban’” in Van den Brink, M., Burri, S. and Goldschmidt, J. (eds.), Equality and Human Rights: Nothing but Trouble? Liber Amicorum Titia Loenen (Utrecht 2015), 67–85 Google Scholar.
54 L. Phillips, “Top German Liberal in EU Parliament Wants Europe-Wide Burqa Ban”, EU Observer, 3 May 2010.
55 Elver, H., The Headscarf Controversy: Secularism and Freedom of Religion (Oxford 2014), 41–72 Google Scholar.
56 Foblets and Alidadi, Summary Report on the Religare Project, p. 24.
57 Pastorelli, S., “Religious Dress Codes: the Italian Case” in Ferrari, A. and Pastorelli, S. (eds.), Religion in Public Spaces (Surrey 2012), 235–54Google Scholar.
58 One of those local bans, issued in the municipality of Lleida, was declared unconstitutional by the Spanish Supreme Court on 28 February 2013. See Foblets and Alidadi, Summary Report on the Religare Project, p. 24.
59 Amnesty International, “Spain: Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Full-Face Veils; AI Concerns Remain About Restrictions on Headscarves in Schools”, EUR 41/001/2013, 8 April 2013.
60 Ibid., at p. 1. The Supreme Court held that “the ban may have the effect of confining women wearing such a dress to the home”.
61 Ibid.
62 Foblets and Alidadi, Summary Report on the Religare Project, p. 24. On the wearing of headscarves in courtrooms, see Barik Edidi v Spain (Application no. 21780/13), Judgment of 26 April 2016 (only in French).
63 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [157].
64 Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Resolution 2076, at [1].
65 Ibid., at para. [3].
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid., at para. [4].
68 Ibid., at para. [5].
69 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Nussberger and Jäderblom, at [5].
70 Ibid. See also, mutatis mutandis, the partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge O'Leary in Affaire Ebrahimian c. France (Application no. 64846/11), Judgment of 26 November 2015 (in French).
71 Ibid., at para. [6].
72 Ibid., at para. [7].
73 Ibid., at para. [9].
74 Berry, “S.A.S. v France”.
75 L. Vickers, “Conform or Be Confined: S.A.S. v France”, Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8 July 2014.
76 Chaib and Peroni, “S.A.S. v France”.
77 E. Brems, “S.A.S. v France as a Problematic Precedent”, Strasbourg Observers, 9 July 2014.
78 Ibid.
79 Berry, “S.A.S. v France”. Also Evans, C. and Baker, T., “Religion and Human Rights: Principles and Practice” in Cranmer, F., Hill, M., Kenny, C. and Sandberg, R. (eds.), The Confluence of Law and Religion: Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Work of Norman Doe (Cambridge 2016), ch. 13, 199 Google Scholar.
80 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Nussberger and Jäderblom, at [25].
81 Shaw, M., International Law, 7th ed. (Cambridge 2014), 66–69 Google Scholar.
82 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [13]–[14].
83 Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle (Oxford 1985), 48–49 Google Scholar.
84 Ibid., at p. 54.
85 Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation, p. 68.
86 Bjorge, Domestic Application of the ECHR, pp. 131–54.
87 Sidabras and Džiautas v Lithuania (Application nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00), Judgment of 27 July 2004, at [48].
88 Vallianatos and Others v Greece (Application nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09), Judgment of 7 November 2013 (Grand Chamber). Also Trispiotis, “Discrimination and Civil Partnerships”, pp. 351–57.
89 Genovese v Malta (Application no. 53124/09), Judgment of 11 October 2011.
90 Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation, p. 75.
91 Bratza, N., “The ‘Precious Asset’: Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights” (2012) 14 L.J.Eccl. 256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCrudden, C., “Religion, Human Rights, Equality and the Public Sphere” (2011) 13 L.J.Eccl. 26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
92 Karaduman v Turkey (Application no. 16278/90), Judgment of 3 May 1993, p. 108.
93 Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey (Application nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), Judgment of 13 February 2003 (Grand Chamber), at [91].
94 Ibid.
95 Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v Bulgaria (Application no. 39023/97), Judgment of 13 December 2004.
96 Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v Bulgaria (Application nos. 412/03 and 35677/04), Judgment of 22 January 2009.
97 United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v Turkey (Application no. 133/1996/752/951), Judgment of 30 January 1998 (Grand Chamber), at [42]–[43]; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v Romania (Application no. 46626/99), Judgment of 3 February 2005, at [27]; Tsonev v Bulgaria (Application no 45963/99), Judgment of 13 April 2006, at [48]; Christian Democratic People's Party v Moldova (No. 2) (Application no. 25196/04), Judgment of 2 February 2010, at [24]. Exceptions to the rule include safeguarding democracy and protecting the country's electoral system. See Refah Partisi (Application nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), Judgment of 13 February 2003 (Grand Chamber), at [100]; Gorzelik v Poland (Application no. 44158/98), Judgment of 17 February 2004 (Grand Chamber), at [88]–[106].
98 Handyside v United Kingdom (Application no. 5493/72), Judgment of 7 December 1976, at [49].
99 I.A. (Application no. 42571/98), Judgment of 13 September 2005, at [28]–[30].
100 Perinçek v Switzerland (Application no. 27510/08), Judgment of 15 October 2015 (Grand Chamber), partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Nussberger, p. 119.
101 Leyla Şahin (Application no. 44774/98), Judgment of 10 November 2005 (Grand Chamber), at [108].
102 Soering v United Kingdom (Application no. 14038/88), Judgment of 7 July 1989, at [87]; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen (Application nos. 5095/71, 5920/72 and 5926/72), Judgment of 7 December 1976, at [53].
103 United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey (Application no. 19392/92), Judgment of 30 January 1998, at [45].
104 Chassagnou and Others v France (Application nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95), Judgment of 24 April 1999 (Grand Chamber), at [113].
105 Habermas, J., Europe: The Faltering Project (Cambridge 2009), 66–70 Google Scholar.
106 That sense of mutual respect is not equivalent to appraising beliefs or qualities we dislike. Rather, it is closer to what Stephen Darwall calls “recognition” respect, namely that we should recognise and be willing to be constrained by the moral requirements placed on our behaviour by the existence of other persons. See Darwall, S., “Two Kinds of Respect” (1977) 88 Ethics 38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Raz, J., Value, Respect and Attachment (Cambridge 2001), 158–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On how social constructions influence the development of our sense of disrespect, see Green, L., “Two Worries About Respect for Persons” (2010) 120 Ethics 212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
107 Zucca, L., “Freedom of Religion in a Secular World” in Cruft, R., Liao, S.M. and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights (Oxford 2015), ch. 21, 399–401 Google Scholar.
108 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [25].
109 Conseil d'Etat, Etude Relative, pp. 95–122.
110 Laborde, C., Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy (Oxford 2008), 177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
111 Ibid., at p. 181.
112 Ibid., at p. 178.
113 Habermas, J., “Pre-Political Foundations of the Democratic Constitutional State?” in Schuller, F. (ed.), The Dialectics of Secularization (San Francisco 2006), 30 Google Scholar.
114 Ibid.
115 Laborde, Critical Republicanism, p. 178.
116 Ibid., at p. 179.
117 On the distinction between nationality, national identity and citizenship, see Barry, B., Culture and Equality (Cambridge 2001), 77–81 Google Scholar.
118 Commission de Réflexion sur L'Application du Principe de Laïcité dans la République, Rapport au President de la République, translated in O'Brien, R., The Stasi Report: The Report of the Committee of Reflection on the Application of the Principle of Secularity in the Republic (Buffalo, NY 2005), 36–46 Google Scholar. Specifically on the relationship between republicanism and equality, see also Hazareesingh, S., Political Traditions in Modern France (Oxford 1994), 65–98 Google Scholar.
119 Habermas, “Pre-Political Foundations”, pp. 45–46.
120 Roy, O., Secularism Confronts Islam (New York 2007), 65–90 Google Scholar.
121 Laborde, Critical Republicanism, p. 193.
122 Ibid., at p. 195.
123 Hunter-Heinin, M., “Why the French Don't Like the Burqa: Laïcité, National Identity and Religious Freedom” (2012) 61 I.C.L.Q. 613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 628–34.
124 Brems, E., Chaib, S.O. and Peroni, L., “Improving Justice in the ‘Burqa Ban’ Debates: Group Vulnerability and Procedural Justice” in Foblets, M., Alidadi, K., Nielsen, J. and Yanasmayan, Z. (eds.), Belief, Law and Politics: What Future for a Secular Europe? (Surrey 2014), 265–73Google Scholar.
125 Taylor, C., “The Politics of Recognition” in Gutman, A. (ed.), Multiculturalism (Princeton, NJ 1994), 25–75 Google Scholar.
126 Laborde, Critical Republicanism, pp. 195–96.
127 Akan, M., “Laïcité and Multiculturalism: The Stasi Report in Context” (2009) 60 British Journal of Sociology 237 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
128 Arrowsmith v United Kingdom (Application no. 7050/75), Judgment of 12 October 1978, at [19]; Kalaç v Turkey (Application no. 20704/92), Judgment of 1 July 1997, at [27]; Şahin v Turkey, at paras. [105], and [121].
129 Gough v United Kingdom (Application no. 49327/11), Judgment of 28 October 2014, at [171]–[176].
130 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [12]–[13].
131 Ibid., joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Nussberger and Jäderblom, at paras. [5]–[7].
132 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [153].
133 Rawls, J., “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, in Rawls, J. (ed.), The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA 1999), 136–37Google Scholar. See also Webber, G., The Negotiable Constitution (Cambridge 2009), 185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Finnis, “On ‘Public Reason’” (2007) Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2007, 6.
134 The third-party interveners emphasised that the feelings of fear and uneasiness associated with the blanket prohibition are not targeted to the full-face veil per se, but to the philosophy associated with it, which is seen as incompatible with the values underlying “living together”; S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), [89]–[105].
135 Ibid., at paras. [12]–[13].
136 In abortion cases, Dworkin draws a comparable, albeit different, distinction between responsibility and conformity in order to interpret the state interest in “protecting human life”. See Dworkin, R., Freedom's Law (Oxford 1996), 95–96 Google Scholar. Also Dworkin, R., Is Democracy Possible Here? (Princeton, NJ 2006), 78–79 Google Scholar.
137 Dworkin, Freedom's Law, p. 95.
138 Nussbaum, M., The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age (Cambridge, MA 2012), 13–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
139 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [122].
140 Dworkin, Freedom's Law, pp. 95–96.
141 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [17], [22]. Also Mancini, S., “The Power of Symbols and Symbols as Power: Secularism and Religion as Guarantors of Cultural Convergence” (2009) 30 Cardozo L.Rev. 2629 Google Scholar, at 2643–49.
142 Laborde, Critical Republicanism, p. 209.
143 Brems, E., “Introduction” in Brems, E. (ed.), The Experiences of Face Veil Wearers in Europe and the Law (Cambridge 2014), 4–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leader, S., “Freedom and Futures: Personal Priorities, Institutional Demands and Freedom of Religion” (2007) 70 M.L.R. 713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the relationship of different models of secularism with religious manifestation, see Leigh, R. and Ahdar, I., “Post-Secularism and the European Court of Human Rights: Or How God Never Really Went Away” (2012) 75 M.L.R. 1064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1068–71.
144 On personal and political morality, see Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs, pp. 327–31.
145 Laborde, Critical Republicanism, pp. 208–09.
146 Dworkin, “Rights as Trumps” in Waldron, J. (ed.), Theories of Rights (New York 1984), ch. 7, 158 Google Scholar; Hellman, D., “Equal Protection in the Key of Respect” (2014) 123 Yale L.J. 3036 Google Scholar; Letsas, “Strasbourg's Interpretive Ethic”, pp. 538–41; Waldron, J., “Pildes on Dworkin's Theory of Rights” (2000) 29 J.L.S. 301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
147 Lippert-Rasmussen, K., Born Free and Equal? A Philosophical Enquiry into the Nature of Discrimination (Oxford 2014), 65–68 Google Scholar; De Schutter, O., The Prohibition of Discrimination under European Human Rights Law (European Commission 2011), 17 Google Scholar; Schiek, D., Waddington, L. and Bell, M., National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law (Oxford 2007), 124 Google Scholar.
148 Bagenstos, S.R., “Rational Discrimination and the Politics of (Disability) Civil Rights” (2003) 89 Val.U.L.Rev. 825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jolls, C., “Anti-Discrimination and Accommodation” (2002) 115 Harv.L.Rev. 642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jolls, C., “Accommodation Mandates” (2000) 53 Stan.L.Rev. 223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
149 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), joint partly dissenting opinion, at [13].
150 Nussbaum, The New Religious Intolerance, p. 106.
151 Peck v United Kingdom (Application no. 44647/98), Judgment of 28 January 2003, at [57]. See also Bigaeva v Greece (Application no. 26713/05), Judgment of 28 May 2009, at [23]; Niemietz v Germany (Application no. 13710/88), Judgment of 16 December 1992, at [29].
152 See, mutatis mutandis, Chassagnou and Others (Application nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95), Judgment of 24 April 1999 (Grand Chamber), at [117], where the ECtHR held that freedom of association under Article 11 ECHR includes the right not to join an association.
153 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), joint partly dissenting opinion, at [8].
154 Serif v Greece (Application no. 38178/97), at [53].
155 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), joint partly dissenting opinion, at [14].
156 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v Switzerland (Application no. 16354/06), Judgment of 13 July 2012 (Grand Chamber), at [48].
157 Stoll v Switzerland (Application no. 69698/01), Judgment of 10 December 2007 (Grand Chamber), at [101].
158 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (Application no. 16354/06), Judgment of 13 July 2012 (Grand Chamber), at [48]; Stoll (Application no. 69698/01), Judgment of 10 December 2007 (Grand Chamber), at [101].
159 Perinçek (Application no. 27510/08), Judgment of 15 October 2015 (Grand Chamber), at [280].
160 Rawls has argued that a plurality of conflicting comprehensive doctrines, including religious, philosophical and moral, is a “fact” of well-ordered constitutional democracies. See Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, pp. 131–32.
161 Art. 17 ECHR prohibits abuse of rights.
162 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [25].
163 Ibid., at para. [17].
164 The full-face veil carries a plurality of meanings for women, as research from Liberty and the Open Society Justice Initiative demonstrates. See S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [101] and [104], respectively.
165 Ibid., at paras. [119]–[120].
166 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse (Application no. 16354/06), Judgment of 13 July 2012 (Grand Chamber), at [48]; Stoll (Application no. 69698/01), Judgment of 10 December 2007 (Grand Chamber), at [101].
167 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [17], [31].
168 Ibid., at paras. [19], [103]–[105].
169 Ibid., at para. [135].
170 J. Baubérot, Les Sept Laïcités Françaises (Paris 2015), 16–18.
171 J. Habermas, “Intolerance and Discrimination” (2003) 1 I•CON 2, 6–11.
172 Laborde, C., “Secular Philosophy and Muslim Headscarves in Schools” (2005) 13 Journal of Political Philosophy 305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Choudhury, N., “From the Stasi Commission to the European Court of Human Rights: L'Affaire du Foulard and the Challenge of Protecting the Rights of Muslim Girls” (2007) 16 Colum.J.Gender & L. 199 Google Scholar, at 235–44.
173 The French Conseil constitutionnel has repeatedly stressed that very point. See e.g. Conseil constitutionnel, decision no. 2012–297 QPC of 21 February 2013, para. 5. Also, this was historically the constitutional role of the principle of laïcité. See Audi, R., “The Separation of Church and State and the Obligations of Citizenship” (1989) 18 Philosophy & Public Affairs 259 Google Scholar, at 295; Weil, P., “Why the French Laïcité is Liberal” (2009) 30 Cardozo Law Review 2699 Google Scholar.
174 McGoldrick, D., “Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life – Crucifixes in the Classroom?” (2011) 11 H.R.L.R. 451 Google Scholar, at 456. Apart from fair distribution, that principle also entails intangible forms of symbolic social recognition. See Laborde, C., “Political Liberalism and Religion: On Separation and Establishment” (2013) 21 Journal of Political Philosophy 67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
175 Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, Resolution 2076, at [6].
176 French laïcité has been associated with the organisation and separation of our common geographical space in order to secure peaceful coexistence of different faiths and freedom of conscience. See Weil, P., “Headscarf versus Burqa: Two French Bans with Different Meanings” in Mancini, S. and Rosenveld, M. (eds.), Constitutional Secularism in an Age of Religious Revival (Oxford 2014), ch. 11, 213–15Google Scholar. For a similar argument in the American constitutional context, see Greenawalt, K., “Secularism, Religion, and Liberal Democracy in the United States” (2009) 30 Cardozo L.Rev. 2383 Google Scholar.
177 Hammarberg, T., Human Rights in Europe: No Grounds for Complacency (Strasbourg 2011), 39–43 Google Scholar.
178 Laborde, “Secular Philosophy”, p. 328.
179 S.A.S. (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014 (Grand Chamber), at [17], [22].
180 Christian Democratic People's Party v Moldova (No. 2) (Application no. 25196/04), Judgment of 2 February 2010, at [24]; Tsonev v Bulgaria (Application no 45963/99), Judgment of 13 April 2006, at [48]; United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey (Application no. 19392/92), Judgment of 30 January 1998, at [42]–[43].
181 Association Les Temoins de Jehovah v France (Application no. 8916/05), Judgment of 30 June 2011 (only in French); Religionsgemeinschaft Der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v Austria (Application no. 40825/98), Judgment of 31 July 2008, at [98].
182 Perinçek (Application no. 27510/08), Judgment of 15 October 2015 (Grand Chamber), at [280].
183 Peck (Application no. 44647/98), Judgment of 28 January 2003, at [57].
