In the ruling on Lachiri/Belgium, commentators discern a new development in the ECHR’s jurisprudence on the relationship between the headscarf and freedom of religion. According to the author, that is not the case: in fact, he observes a continued bias of the Court towards the headscarf. |
Jurisprudentie en wetgeving |
Lachiri/België: het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens blijft worstelen met de hoofddoek |
Tijdschrift | Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid, Aflevering 3 2019 |
Trefwoorden | Islamitisch recht;, sharia in Europa;, hoofddoek;, vrijheid van religie, Mensenrechten |
Auteurs | Prof. dr. mr. Maurits S. Berger |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Jurisprudentie |
De geest en de fles van de nieuwe EHRM-uitspraken inzake het Belgische boerkaverbod |
Tijdschrift | Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid, Aflevering 2 2017 |
Trefwoorden | Boerkaverbod, EHRM, Mensenrechten, margin of appreciation, islam in Europa |
Auteurs | Prof. dr. mr. Maurits Berger |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Two new rulings by the European Court of Human Rights confirm earlier jurisprudence regarding the ‘burqa ban’, as such ban is justified on the basis of the principle of ‘living together’. Still, two points stand out in these rulings that need discussion. The first is that this is an example of how the Court applies its new ‘qualitative, democracy-enhancing approach’ that pays more consideration to domestic decision-making in the field of human rights. These rulings show the flipside of this laudable endeavour, however, as the Court sees no reason to evaluate, let alone critically assess, the outcome of these domestic decision-making processes. Second, the remarkable ‘concurring opinion’ by the president of the ruling judges, in which he states in very stern wordings that the ruling should not be considered a cart blanche for burqa bans elsewhere. Given the elaborate considerations why such ban would not be admissible, it is surprising that the Court has failed to elaborate why the burqa bans in France and Belgium are admissible. |