Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-25T13:34:33.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One Court, Two Voices: Case Note on the First Senate's Order on the Ban on Headscarves for Teachers from 27 January 2015: Case No. 1 BvR 471/10, 1 BvR 1181/10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Johann Ruben Leiss

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The First Senate of the German Constitutional Court held in its decision on 27 January 2015 on the ban of headscarves that a blanket ban on religious statements for teachers in public non-denominational schools—that does not require a sufficiently concrete threat to the peace at the schools or the state's neutrality—is unconstitutional. The Court further nullified a discriminatory clause that privileged Christian-occidental educational and cultural values and traditions vis-à-vis other religions. By doing so, Karlsruhe made a strong plea in favor of understanding the German State's neutral role in religious matters as one of openness and inclusion of a plurality of religions and worldviews, rather than that of a laizistic polity. It brought its jurisprudence in line with the United Nations Human Rights Committee's approach in similar matters. Though, arguably, the case would have required a referral to the Joint Senate of the Constitutional Court, as it marks a deviation from the Second Senate's decision from 2003, the findings of the Court on the substantive law are to be welcomed.

Type
Special Section
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , 01 September 2015 , pp. 901 - 915
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 27, 2015, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10, http://www.bverfg.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110.html; see also Press Release No. 14/2015, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Ein Pauschales Kopftuchverbot für Lehrkräfte im Öffentlichen Schulen ist mit der Verfassung Nicht Vereinbar, Case No. 1 BvR 471/10, 1 BvR 1181/10 (Mar. 13, 2015), available at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2015/bvg15-014.html.Google Scholar

2 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Sept. 24, 2003, Case. No. 2 BvR 1436/02, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2003/09/rs20030924_2bvr143602en.html.Google Scholar

3 Eur. Consult. Ass'n, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (opened for signature Nov. 4, 1950 and entered into force Sept. 3, 1953), ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222, amended by Protocol No. 14 (entered into force June 1, 2010), UNTS No. A 2889, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm.Google Scholar

4 Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [GG] [Basic Law] art. 31, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/.Google Scholar

5 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 1–17.Google Scholar

6 Schulgesetz für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (SchulG NW) p. 102 (Feb. 15, 2005) in der Fassung des ersten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Schulgesetzes 270 (Jun. 13, 2006).Google Scholar

7 Id. Google Scholar

8 Id. Google Scholar

9 Id. Google Scholar

10 For more on the factual and procedural background with regard to the first complainant, see BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 7–25.Google Scholar

11 See id. at paras. 26–37.Google Scholar

12 See id. at paras. 11–25, 30–37.Google Scholar

13 See id. at paras. 39–55.Google Scholar

14 See id. at paras. 80–122.Google Scholar

15 See id. at paras. 83–89.Google Scholar

16 See id. at paras. 86–89.Google Scholar

17 See id. at paras. 90–96.Google Scholar

18 See id. at paras. 95–96.Google Scholar

19 See id. at para. 96.Google Scholar

20 See id. at paras. 97–122.Google Scholar

21 See id. at para. 99.Google Scholar

22 See id. at para. 100.Google Scholar

23 See id. at paras. 100–07.Google Scholar

24 See id. at para. 102.Google Scholar

25 See id. at paras. 103–105f.Google Scholar

26 See id. at para. 104.Google Scholar

27 See id. at para. 105.Google Scholar

28 See id. at para. 112. On crucifixes in classrooms, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], May 16, 1995, Case No. 1 BvR 1087/91, para. 1, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%2093,%201.Google Scholar

29 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 105.Google Scholar

30 See id. Google Scholar

31 See id. at paras. 106–07.Google Scholar

32 See id. at paras. 108–22.Google Scholar

33 See id. at paras. 109–10.Google Scholar

34 See 108 BVerfGE 282 (paras. 42–43); see also BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 109– 10.Google Scholar

35 See id. at para. 115.Google Scholar

36 See id. at paras. 113–15.Google Scholar

37 See id. at para.116.Google Scholar

38 See id. at paras. 123–38.Google Scholar

39 See id. at paras. 131–37.Google Scholar

40 See id. at paras. 128–30.Google Scholar

41 See id. at paras. 147–52.Google Scholar

42 See id. at para. 149. On the status of the convention within the German legal system, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG]BVerfG [Federal Constitutional Court], Mar. 26, 1978, Case Nos. 2 BvR 589/79; 2 BvR 750/81; 2 BvR 284/85, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%2074,%20358 (on the presumption of innocence – Unschuldsvermutung); BVerfG, Feb. 26, 2008, Case Nos. 1 BvR 1602/07, 1 BvR 1606/07, & 1 BvR 1626/07, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%20120,%20180 (Caroline III). On the convention as a “guide to interpretation”, see the famous Görgülü decision, see BVerfG, Oct. 14, 2004, Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BverfGE%20111,%20307; see Further e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], May 4, 2011, Case Nos. 2 BvR 2365/09, 2 BvR 740/10, 2 BvR 2333/08, 2 BvR 1152/10, & 2 BvR 571/10, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%20128,%20326 (Sicherungsverwahrung).Google Scholar

43 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 149.Google Scholar

44 See id. at paras. 151–52.Google Scholar

45 See id. at paras. 153–55.Google Scholar

46 See id. at para. 156.Google Scholar

47 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 27, 2015, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10, Appendix to the Order, http://www.bverfg.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110.html (dissenting Opinion of Justice Wilhelm Schluckebier and Justice Monica Hermanns).Google Scholar

48 Justice Hermanns is a member of the Second Senate, not the first. She only happened to sit on the bench in this case due to the partiality of vice-president Ferdinand Kirchhof, who was involved in prior judicial proceedings on prohibitions of headscarves before German courts, as well as the drafting of legislation on a ban of headscarf in Baden-Württemberg. See BVerfG, Kopftuchverbot (Ban on Headscarves), Feb. 26, 2014, Case Nos. 1 BvR 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2014/02/rs20140226_1bvr047110.html.Google Scholar

49 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 2, 5–19.Google Scholar

50 See id. at paras. 2–19.Google Scholar

51 See id. at paras. 11–12.Google Scholar

52 See id. at para. 14.Google Scholar

53 See BVerfGE, Case. No. 2 BvR 1436/02.Google Scholar

54 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 2, 6–7.Google Scholar

55 See id. at para. 7.Google Scholar

56 See id. at paras. 2, 6.Google Scholar

57 See id. at paras. 3, 20–25.Google Scholar

58 See id. at para. 30.Google Scholar

59 See id. at para. 30.Google Scholar

60 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 109–10; BVerfGE, Case. No. 2 BvR 1436/02, paras. 42–43.Google Scholar

61 See also Heinig, Hans Michael, Kurswechsel in der Kopftuchfrage: Nachvollziehbar, Aber mit Negativen Folgewirkungen (2015), available at http://www.verfassungsblog.de/kurswechsel-in-der-kopftuchfrage-nachvollziehbar-aber-mit-negativen-folgewirkungen/#.VdX5Iflv9SM (welcoming the Court's reasoning).Google Scholar

62 But see Kelek, Necla, Gefährlicher Stoff, FAZ-net, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/necla-kelek-ueber-das-kopftuchurteil-und-selbstbestimmung-13516184.html (expressing a critique of the decision).Google Scholar

63 See also Wrase, Michael, Kopftuch Revisited - Karlsruhe ebnet Weg für Religiöse Vielfalt in der Schule (2015), http://www.juwiss.de/15-2015/; Christoph Möllers, A Tale of Two Courts (2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/a-tale-of-two-courts/#.VdX5bflv9SM.Google Scholar

64 See Heinig, , supra note 61.Google Scholar

65 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at paras. 3, 20–25.Google Scholar

66 For the convincing arguments of the Court, see BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 131–37.Google Scholar

67 This point is discussed further on www.verfassungsblog.de. See Heinig, supra note 61; Von Tragenden Gründen und Abstrakter Gefahr, http://www.verfassungsblog.de/von-tragenden-gruenden-und-abstrakter-gefahr/#.VdX5lvlv9SM; Möllers, supra note 63; See also Möllers, Christoph, Geht es Nicht um Verfassungsrecht? (2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/und-ich-dachte-es-waere-ein-verfassungsgericht/; Georg Neureither, Über Kopftücher, Segelanweisungen und das Pech, zur Falschen Zeit am Falschen Ort und vor dem Falschen Senat zu Sein (2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/ueber-kopftuecher-segelanweisungen-und-das-pech-zur-falschen-zeit-am-falschen-ort-und-vor-dem-falschen-senat-zu-sein/#.VdX6Fflv9SM (arguing that in fact the First Senate's order is a deviation from the 2003 decision). See also BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 7 (dissenting opinion).Google Scholar

68 BVerfGE, Case. No. 2 BvR 1436/02.Google Scholar

69 See id. at paras. 64–66.Google Scholar

70 Cf. Wrase, Michael, supra note 63; Mathias Hong, Two Tales of Two Courts: Zum Kopftuch-Beschluss und dem “Horror Pleni”, http://www.verfassungsblog.de/two-tales-of-two-courts-zum-kopftuch-beschluss-und-dem-horror-pleni/#.VdX6O_lv9SM; Matthias Hong, Sicher, es Geht um Verfassungsrecht: zu Obiter Dicta und “Stare Decisis” (2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/sicher-es-geht-um-verfassungsrecht-zu-obiter-dicta-und-stare-decisis/.Google Scholar

71 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 7 (dissenting opinion) (indicating that the majority based its non-referral on such a reasoning).Google Scholar

72 See BVerfGE, Case. No. 2 BvR 1436/02 at para. 49. See Heinig, Kurswechsel in der Kopftuchfrage, supra note 61 (acknowledging a certain ambivalence with regard to the reasoning of the Second Senate on this point).Google Scholar

73 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung, Aug. 11, 1993, BGBl. I at 1473; Article 1 des Gesetzes, Aug. 29, 2013 BGBl. I at 3463. section 16(1) (stating “[w]ill ein Senat in einer Rechtsfrage von der in einer Entscheidung des anderen Senats enthaltenen Rechtsauffassung abweichen, so entscheidet darüber das Plenum des Bundeverfassungsgerichtes.”).Google Scholar

74 To date only five cases have been referred to the joint senate. See. Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], July 20, 1954, Case No. 1 PBvU 1/54, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%204,%2027; BVerfG, June 11, 1980, Case No. 1 PBvU 1/79, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%2054,%20277; BVerfG, Apr. 8, 1997, Case No. 1 PBvU 1/95, http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BverfGE%2095,%20322; BVerfG, Apr. 30, 2003, Case No. 1 PBvU 1/02, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGE%20107%2C%20395&Suche=BVerfGE%20107%2C%20395; BVerfG, July 3, Case No. 2 PBvU 1/11, http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20PBvU%201%2F11&Suche=2%20PBvU%201%2F11.Google Scholar

75 See the overview of the laws on the University of Trier's homepage at http://www.uni-trier.de/index.php?id=24373#c48119. Among these states are: Baden-Wurttemberg Bavaria, Berlin, Bremen, Hesse, Lower-Saxony, and Saarland.Google Scholar

76 Among these are Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Hesse and Saarland.Google Scholar

77 On the effect of the decision for other Länder and the uprising political resistance in the Bavarian Government, see Aust, Helmut Philipp, Bayern auf dem Sonderweg? Nachwirkungen der Kopftuch-Entscheidung des BVerfG (2015), available at http://www.verfassungsblog.de/bayern-auf-dem-sonderweg-nachwirkungen-der-kopftuch-entscheidung-des-bverfg/.Google Scholar

78 See Heinig, , Kurswechsel in der Kopftuchfrage, supra note 61.Google Scholar

79 See Switzerland, Dahlab v., App. No. 42393/98 (Feb. 15, 2001), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-22643#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-22643%22]}; Sahin v. Turkey, App. No. 44774/98 (Nov. 10, 2005), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70956#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-70956%22]}; Kurtulmus v. Turkey, App. No. 65500/01 (Jan. 24, 2006), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-3518#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-3518%22]}. On the limits of the margin of appreciation, see Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10 and 36516/10 (Jan. 15, 2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-115881#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115881%22]}.Google Scholar

80 This is also assumed by Justices Schluckebier and Hermanns in their dissenting opinion. See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 8 (dissenting opinion)Google Scholar

81 See, e.g., Bikramjit Singh v. France, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008 IHRL 1852 (UNHRC 2008), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/407/94/PDF/G1340794.pdf?OpenElement.Google Scholar

82 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N. G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GOAR Supp. (No. 16), 52 U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976), 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-4&lang=en.Google Scholar

83 A keski is—as explained in the view of the UNHRC—a “small light piece of material of a dark colour, often used as a mini-turban, covering the long uncut hair considered sacred in the Sikh religion,” Singh at para. 2.3.Google Scholar

84 Id. at para. 8.7.Google Scholar

85 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 149; see also Kammerentscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGK] [Decisions of the Chambers of the German Federal Constitutional Court], Feb. 1, 2007, Case No. 2 BvR 126/04, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BVerfGK%2010,%20234.Google Scholar

86 See BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 14 (dissenting opinion).Google Scholar