In the recent cases Dakir c. Belgique and Belcacemi et Oussar c. Belgique, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision rendered in the well – known 2014 case, S.A.S. v. France, regarding the burqa/niqab ban in public spaces. Establishing that the 2011 Belgian law, sanctioning the wearing in public of a face-covering veil, is compatible with the limitations provided in Article 9 ECHR, the Strasbourg Court applied all the arguments seen in the French case. Before else, the ruling relied on the criterion of “vivre ensemble”, conceived as a requisite value for social cohesion and respect for pluralism and which can be subsumed into the protection of “rights and freedoms of others” for the sake of being held legitimate under Article 9. It shall be argued that the principle of “living together” is too vague and ambiguous a tool to be used as a juridical reason to justify a limitation on individual freedoms, therefore leaving space for other, more meaningful means, like the (material) concept of public order.
La questione del velo integrale torna a Strasburgo. Brevi considerazioni intorno a Dakir c. Belgique e Belcacemi et Oussar c. Belgique. In www.diritti-cedu.unipg.it
ANGELETTI, Silvia
2017
Abstract
In the recent cases Dakir c. Belgique and Belcacemi et Oussar c. Belgique, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision rendered in the well – known 2014 case, S.A.S. v. France, regarding the burqa/niqab ban in public spaces. Establishing that the 2011 Belgian law, sanctioning the wearing in public of a face-covering veil, is compatible with the limitations provided in Article 9 ECHR, the Strasbourg Court applied all the arguments seen in the French case. Before else, the ruling relied on the criterion of “vivre ensemble”, conceived as a requisite value for social cohesion and respect for pluralism and which can be subsumed into the protection of “rights and freedoms of others” for the sake of being held legitimate under Article 9. It shall be argued that the principle of “living together” is too vague and ambiguous a tool to be used as a juridical reason to justify a limitation on individual freedoms, therefore leaving space for other, more meaningful means, like the (material) concept of public order.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
