The highest court in the European Union has ruled that government offices across the EU have the authority to prohibit employees from wearing religious symbols, such as Islamic headscarves, in the interest of maintaining neutrality. However, the court emphasized that such restrictions must be applied uniformly to all employees and must be compatible with the legal framework of each member state where they are implemented.
It was said in the ruling that such prohibitions were allowed in order to maintain a “entirely neutral administrative environment,” which was issued by the court of justice of the European Union on Tuesday.
The court, on the other hand, stated that prohibitions on apparel or insignia that are associated with philosophical or religious ideas have to be enforced in an equitable manner. “Such a rule is not discriminatory if it is applied in a general and indiscriminate manner to all of that administration’s staff and is limited to what is strictly necessary,” it stated. “In particular, if it is limited to what is strictly necessary.”
A Muslim worker in the municipality of Ans, located in eastern Belgium, was informed that she was not permitted to wear a headscarf while she was on the job. The court was asked to make a decision. According to the records filed with the court, her profession required her to interact with the general public only occasionally.
Within a short period of time, the municipality revised its employment policies to stipulate that all employees must adhere to the principle of complete neutrality. A complaint was filed by the employee with a local court, in which she characterized the prohibition as discriminatory and expressed her fears that her right to freedom of religion had been violated.
A number of images that were presented by the plaintiff made it abundantly evident that “discreet signs of conviction were tolerated.” The court made this observation regardless of the fact that overt signs of religious conviction were prohibited.
In an interview with the media, the attorney for the complaint stated that these symbols included the wearing of earrings that included a cross as well as the hosting of Christmas parties.
The European Union was contacted by the court, which requested that the court of justice determine whether or not the neutrality requirement was discriminatory.
In a ruling that applies to public sector offices all over the European Union, the court that is based in Luxembourg stated that a policy of complete neutrality “may be regarded as being objectively justified by a legitimate aim.”
However, it was also mentioned that the opposite would also be true: public administrations may be justified in permitting employees to wear conspicuous markers of belief, whether they are philosophical or religious, in a generic and indiscriminate manner.
The report went on to say that national courts had a “margin of discretion,” which gave them the ability to determine the most effective way to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the impartiality of the public service. “However, that objective must be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner, and the measures adopted to achieve it must be limited to what is strictly necessary,” it stated. “This objective must be pursued in order to successfully achieve it.”
Sibylle Gioe, the attorney who is defending the employee in Belgium, brought attention to the fact that the verdict of the court is not entirely clear. She made the statement that “the law of the European Union does not favor one solution over another.” “And I was anticipating something such as that,” she said.
The announcement of the verdict caused some people to express their worries. The verdict was regarded as having the potential to violate the freedom of religion and speech by Femyso, which is a pan-European network that represents more than thirty Muslim youth and student organizations.
As stated by the organization, “despite being neutrally cloaked, bans on religious symbols invariably target the headscarf.” The organization cited a study published in 2022 by the Open Society Foundations, which suggested that these bans are founded on Islamophobic discourses that characterize Islamic attire as being incompatible with neutrality.
At a time when Islamophobia was on the rise, the verdict might make the marginalization of Muslim women even worse, according to the statement. It also stated that “Muslim women already face intersectional discrimination on multiple grounds, and such a ruling risks legitimizing their removal from public life.”
Specifically, the organization advocated for “workplace inclusivity,” which would allow people of all religions to freely participate in the workplace without the fear of being discriminated against, including young Muslims.
On Tuesday, the court announced a decision that was similar to numerous other rulings that it has issued in the past. When there was a “genuine need” to “present image towards the customers or to prevent social dispute,” the court declared in 2021 that employers in the private sector had the right to restrict employees’ ability to express their religious, political, or philosophical convictions.
Among those who voiced their disapproval of the choice made in 2021 was Human Rights Watch. At the time, Hillary Margolis, who was a member of the organization, issued a statement in which she stated that Muslim women must not be forced to choose between their faith or their jobs.
According to her, such limitations were frequently directed toward Muslim women who wore face veils or headscarves, and they were founded on a fallacious line of reasoning: “That a client’s objections to employees wearing religious dress can legitimately trump employees’ rights.”
