Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
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: 06 March 2019
In Europe, issues concerning religious freedom are hotly debated. Many courts had to consider cases concerning infringement of religious freedom. This Article will focus on three examples: Headscarves, burqas, and crucifixes. Often, the interests of members of minority religions have lost in European courts and European constitutional courts. This is particularly true considering the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights upheld bans on headscarves for students in universities and public secondary schools, as well as for teachers in public schools. The Court also accepted bans on full-body veils worn in public areas. Finally, mandatory crucifixes in public schools have been deemed to conform to the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights. In all of these cases, the European Court of Human Rights has not adequately construed religious freedom as a strong right.
This is where the work of Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde comes in. Böckenförde has thoroughly discussed the proper role of religion in a democratic society. Coming from a theoretical starting point, he developed an understanding of religious freedom as a strong right. He also explained why State neutrality should be understood in terms of open neutrality. Both perspectives help to more fully explain the scope of religious freedom.
1 See Şahin v. Turkey, 2005-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 173 [hereinafter Şahin Case].Google Scholar
2 See Dogru v. France, App. No. 27058/05 (Mar. 4, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ [hereinafter Dogru Case]; Kervanci v. France, App. No. 31645/04 (Mar. 4, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar
3 Dahlab v. Switzerland, 2001-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 447 [hereinafter Dahlab Case].Google Scholar
4 S.A.S. v. France, 2014-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 341 [hereinafter S.A.S. Case].Google Scholar
5 Lautsi and Others v. Italy, 2011-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 61 [hereinafter Lautsi Case].Google Scholar
6 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Das Grundrecht der Gewissensfreiheit, 28 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer [VVDStRL] 33, 37 (1970), translated in Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The Basic Right of Freedom of Conscience, in 2 Religion, law, and Democracy: Selected Writings (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., forthcoming 2018). As the translation is not quite finalized, some slight changes have been introduced.Google Scholar
7 Böckenförde, supra note 6, at 33.Google Scholar
8 Id. Google Scholar
9 Id. at 73.Google Scholar
10 Id. at 51.Google Scholar
11 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Bekenntnisfreiheit in einer pluralen Gesellschaft und die Neutralitätspflicht des Staates, in Kirche und Christlicher Glaube in den Herausforderungen der Zeit 439, 442 (2d ed. 2003).Google Scholar
12 Böckenförde, supra note 6, at 37.Google Scholar
13 Id. at 49.Google Scholar
14 Id.Google Scholar
15 See id. at 53.Google Scholar
16 See id. at 54.Google Scholar
17 See id. at 54.Google Scholar
18 Thankfully, few such cases exist.Google Scholar
19 See Böckenförde, supra note 6, at 60.Google Scholar
20 See id. at 61 (citing Adolf Arndt, an important German social-democrat and jurist in the early times of the Federal Republic).Google Scholar
21 See generally Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisierung, in Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit (1976), translated in Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The Rise of the State as a Process of Secularization, in 2 Religion, Law, and Democracy: Selected Writings (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., forthcoming 2018).Google Scholar
22 Böckenförde, supra note 6, at 61.Google Scholar
23 See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Der säkularisierte Staat: Sein Charakter, seine Rechtfertigung und seine Probleme im 21. Jahrhundert 43–72 (2nd ed. 2015), translated in Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The Secularized State: Its Character, Justification, and Problems in the 21st Century, in 2 Religion, Law, and Democracy: Selected Writings (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., forthcoming 2018).Google Scholar
24 See Böckenförde, supra note 11, at 446–48.Google Scholar
25 See Böckenförde, supra note 23, at 20.Google Scholar
26 Id. at 38.Google Scholar
27 Id. at 39.Google Scholar
28 Id. Google Scholar
29 Böckenförde, supra note 21, at 60.Google Scholar
30 Böckenförde, supra note 23, at 24.Google Scholar
31 Id. at 25.Google Scholar
32 Id. Google Scholar
33 Id. Google Scholar
34 Id. at 26.Google Scholar
35 Staatsgerichtshof Hessen [StGH Hessen] [Hessian State Constitutional Court] Oct. 27, 1965, 21 Juristenzeitung [JZ] 337 (1966).Google Scholar
36 See generally Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Religionsfreiheit und öffentliches Schulgebet, 49 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung [Dhöv] 30 (1966).Google Scholar
37 Id. at 32.Google Scholar
38 Id. Google Scholar
39 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Oct. 16, 1979, 52 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 223.Google Scholar
40 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Zum Ende des Schulgebetsstreits, 61 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung [DÖV] 323, 324 (1980).Google Scholar
41 Id. Google Scholar
42 Id.Google Scholar
43 Id.Google Scholar
44 Böckenförde, supra note 40, at 325.Google Scholar
45 Id.Google Scholar
46 See generally Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Kreuze (Kruzifixe) in Gerichtssälen?, 20 Zeitschrift Für Evangelisches Kirchenrecht 119 (1975).Google Scholar
47 Id.Google Scholar
48 Id. at 139.Google Scholar
49 Id. at 144.Google Scholar
50 Bundesverfassungsgericht, May 16, 1995, 93 BVerfGE 1 [hereinafter Judgment of May 16, 1995].Google Scholar
51 Böckenförde, supra note 11, at 439.Google Scholar
52 Cf. Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], Apr. 21, 1999, 109 Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts [BVerwGE] 40, with Judgment of May 16, 1995. Google Scholar
53 Böckenförde, supra note 11, at 452.Google Scholar
54 Judgment of May 16, 1995 at para. 18.Google Scholar
55 See generally Sacksofsky, Ute, Religion and Equality in Germany: The Headscarf Debate from a Constitutional Perspective, in European Union Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives on Multidimensional Equality Law 353–70 (Dagmar Schiek & Victoria Cheg eds., 2008) (providing a fuller story of the development of the headscarf debate up to 2009).Google Scholar
56 Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Jul. 4, 2002, 116 BVerwGE 359.Google Scholar
57 Id. Google Scholar
58 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Sept. 24, 2003, 108 BVerfGE 282.Google Scholar
59 Id.Google Scholar
60 Id. at paras. 302, 309.Google Scholar
61 Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Jun. 24, 2004, 121 BVerwGE 140.Google Scholar
62 Id. Google Scholar
63 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Jan. 27, 2015, 138 BVerfGE 296 [hereinafter Judgment of Jan. 27, 2015].Google Scholar
64 See, e.g., Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Das Kopftuchverbot trifft auch Kreuz und Kippa, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Oct. 13, 2004, at 6; Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Das Kopftuch ist ein Stück Integration, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Jul. 17, 2006, at 6 [hereinafter Böckenförde, Das Kopftuch ist ein Stück Integration].Google Scholar
65 Böckenförde, Das Kopftuch ist ein Stück Integration, supra note 64.Google Scholar
66 See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, “Kopftuchstreit” auf dem richtigen Weg?, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 723–28 (2001).Google Scholar
67 Böckenförde, supra note 64.Google Scholar
68 Id. Google Scholar
69 Id. Google Scholar
70 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Zum Verbot für Lehrkräfte in der Schule ein islamisches Kopftuch zu tragen, 59 Juristen Zeitung [JZ] 1181, 1184 (2004).Google Scholar
71 Judgment of Jan. 27, 2015. Google Scholar
72 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 9, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T. 222 [hereinafter European Convention for Human Rights].Google Scholar
73 S.A.S., 2014-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 341.Google Scholar
74 Id. at 109–10.Google Scholar
75 Id. at 122.Google Scholar
76 Id. Google Scholar
77 Id. at 141.Google Scholar
78 Dahlab, 2001-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 447.Google Scholar
79 See Şahin, 2005-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 173.Google Scholar
80 Id. at 109.Google Scholar
81 Dogru, App. No. 27058/05.Google Scholar
82 Böckenförde, supra note 23, at 20.Google Scholar
83 Lautsi, 2011-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 61.Google Scholar
84 Id. Google Scholar
85 See generally Sacksofsky, Ute, Religiöse Freiheit als Gefahr?, 68 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer [VVDStRL] 9 (2009).Google Scholar
You have
Access
