|
S.A.S. v. France was a case brought for the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the French ban on face covering did not violate European Convention on Human Rights's (ECHR) provisions on right to privacy or freedom of religion, nor other invoked provisions. Two of the seventeen judges dissented. The French ban against face covering, ''loi n° 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public'', was adopted on 11 October 2010 and went into effect on 11 April 2011. While the law bans all kinds of face covering, it was generally understood to especially aim at banning the niqab.〔 On the same day the law came into force, a French woman born in 1990〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), p.3〕 of Pakistani origin referred to as S.A.S filed a complaint against the French state as the law prevented to her from wearing the niqab in public places.〔Kim Willsher (1 July 2014) (France's burqa ban upheld by human rights court ) ''The Guardian''〕〔Saïla Ouald Chaib and Lourdes Peroni (3 July 2014) (S.A.S. v. France: Missed Opportunity to Do Full Justice to Women Wearing a Face Veil ) ''Strasbourger Observer''. (Archived ) from the original on 10 March 2015〕 The woman argued that the law violated articles 3 (against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 8 (on the right to privacy), 9 (on the freedom of religion), 10 (on the right to freedom of expression), 11 (on the right to freedom of assembly), and 14 (which prohibits discrimination) of the ECHR.〔 On their side, the French state argued with regard to articles 8 and 9, that the exceptions in paragraph 2 of these articles applied. Paragraph 2 of article 9 allows limitations on the right to religion if the limitations "are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Specifically, France invoked three grounds for limiting the right to wear burqa: "respect for equality between men and women", "respect for human dignity" and "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society".〔Frank Cranmer (1 July 2014) (Ban on covering face in public not a breach of ECHR: SAS v France )〕 The court did not find the French government's position that the ban was valid due to gender equality or human dignity concerns, but accepted that France's claim that a ban was necessary for "living together" harmoniously was within in law. It underlined that the states had a wide margin of appreciation in cases like this.〔 == Background == In June 2009, the French parliament set down a bipartisan commission to report on the use of the full veil in France. The report was finished in January 2010 and estimated that as of 2009 there were about 1,900 women wearing such veils in France, up from almost none in 2000. The report argued that the wearing of full-face veils went against the French republican values of ''Liberté, égalité, fraternité'', saying that wearing of the veil was to be considered a sign of submission which violated the ideals of liberty and gender equality, while also violating the principle of fraternity by hampering ordinary social contact. The report therefore argued that the full-face veil negated the French principle of "living together" (''le vivre ensemble''). It made several proposals to counter the use of the veil in France, but stopped short of proposing a full ban.〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), pp.4-5〕 Also in January 2010, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) issued an opinion against a ban of the full-veil; arguing that the principle of secularity did not provide enough reasons for a total ban and that a ban might stigmatize Muslims generally and make life more difficult for women who wore the veil. Prime Minister François Fillon on 29 January 2010 ordered the Council of State to carry out a study on the legal possibilities for banning the veil specifically or face-covering generally. The Council presented its study in March 2010, saying that it discouraged a ban specifically targeting religious veils; and that a ban on face-covering in general ought to be limited to situations where identification was necessary for security reasons or other specific reasons.〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), pp.6-7〕 The government, however, found that a limited ban on face-covering was not practical, and in May 2010 proposed a bill on "prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places" which would apply to all kinds of face-covering in public spheres.〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), pp.7-8〕 The law was passed against one vote by the National Assembly in July 2010 and unanimously by the Senate in September 2010. The Constitutional Council who considered the law found that it did not violate the French constitution and the law was adopted on 11 October 2010.〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), p.9〕 On 11 April 2011, a French woman S.A.S who regularly wore a full-face veil, lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights against the French state, claiming that the law violated several of her human rights according to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), pp.1-2〕 The application was assigned to the Chamber of the Fifth Section which in May 2013 declined to rule on it, in favour of the Grand Chamber.〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), p.2〕 In another case regarding the law, where a woman appealed an order to follow a citizenship course for having worn a full veil, the French Court of Cassation in March 2013 found that the law didn't violate ECHR and declined the appeal.〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), pp.15-16〕 A hearing before the Grand Chamber took place on 27 November 2013, with representatives from the French government, the applicant and one representative from the Belgian government. Belgium passed a similar ban as France in July 2011. The Belgian Court of Cassation ruled in December 2012 that the ban did not violate human rights.〔(The Islamic veil across Europe ) BBC. 1 July 2014〕〔CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE (2014), pp.2-3〕〔 Written comments were given by the organizations Amnesty International, Liberty, Open Society Justice Initiative and ARTICLE 19, along with Human Rights Centre of Ghent University〔Saïla Ouald Chaib (29 November 2013) (S.A.S. v. France: A short summary of an interesting hearing ) Strasbourg Observers〕 and the Belgian Government.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「S.A.S. v. France」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|