Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T11:19:55.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religious Tolerance, Pluralist Society and the Neutrality of the State: The Federal Constitutional Court's Decision in the Headscarf Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Matthias Mahlmann

Extract

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.

Some of the most magnificent achievements of human culture, from the Parthenon to Paradise Lost, have been inspired by religion and some of the worst atrocities of human history have been committed to worship its commands. In consequence, whenever questions of religion become part of the political and legal agenda of a society one might be very insecure about the solution of the problem but can be absolutely confident that the stakes are high and the discussions intense. This general observation about religious issues has gained a special dimension due to the events of September 11, 2001, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then the role of religions in general and of Islam in particular is at the very core of central debates of global civil society and of the deliberations and actions of policy makers.

Type
Public Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 11 , 01 November 2003 , pp. 1099 - 1116
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 BVerfG, 2 BvR 1436/02, 24.9.03; available at: http://www.bverfg.de. There is another decision of the German Constitutional Court dealing with head scarves. The Federal Labour Court had ruled that it is impermissible to dismiss an employee in a department store because this employee wears a head scarf. The defendant had argued that he would incur financial losses because costumers were not accustomed to such a sight. The Federal Labour Court did not engage in a principled discussion of the role of fundamental rights like the freedom of religion in this case but argued simply that there was no evidence for the economic losses given. Compare BAG, 2 AZR 472/01, DB 2003, 830. The Federal Constitutional Court followed this argumentation, compare BVerfG, 1 BvR 792/03, 30.7.2003, available at: http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

On the background of the head scarf issue and the divided opinion in German constitutional doctrine compare Stefan Huster, Die ethische Neutralität des Staates 143 – 144 (2002).Google Scholar

2 § 7 Beamtenrechtsrahmengesetz Google Scholar

3 VG Stuttgart NVwZ 2000, 959; VGH Mannheim NJW 2001, 2899.Google Scholar

4 BVerwG JZ 2002, 254. For some comments compare Morlok/Krüper, Aufdem Wegzum “forum neutrum” – Die “Kopftuch-Entscheidung” des BVerwG, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1020 (2003); Wiese, Urteilsanmerkung, ZBR 39 (2003).Google Scholar

5 Id.Google Scholar

6 Id. at. 255.Google Scholar

7 Id. at. 254.Google Scholar

8 More precisely from Art. 4.1, 3.3. Sentence 1, Art. 33.3 and 140 of the GG, the latter incorporating Art. 136.1, 136.4, Art. 137.1 of the Constitution of Weimar into German constitutional law.Google Scholar

9 BVerwG JZ 2002, 255.Google Scholar

10 Id. at 254.Google Scholar

11 Id. at 255.Google Scholar

12 Id.Google Scholar

13 VG Lüneburg NJW 2001, 767. Overruled by OVG Lüneburg, NVwZ-RR 2002, 658.Google Scholar

14 Compare the remarks in favour of a more liberal attitude of former Federal Constitutional Judge Böckenfoerde, “Kopftuchstreit” auf dem richtigen Weg, NJW 2001, 723.Google Scholar

15 BVerfGE 93, 1.Google Scholar

16 Böckenfoerde, NJW 2001, 723, 726.Google Scholar

17 Eur. Court H.R., Dahlab v. Switzerland, Judgment of 15 Febuary 2001, Appl. Nr. 42393/98 available at: http://hudoc.echr.int.Google Scholar

18 Art. 33.2 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar

19 Art. 33.3 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar

20 Art. 4.1. and 4.2 of the Basic law.Google Scholar

21 BVerfG, supra note 1, Nr. 33 et. seq.Google Scholar

22 Art. 7.1 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar

23 Art. 6.2 of the Basic LawGoogle Scholar

24 Id. at Nr. 41et. seq.Google Scholar

25 Id. at Nr. 30, 57et. seq%Google Scholar

26 Id. at Nr. 67et. seq%Google Scholar

27 Id. at Nr. 62 et. seq%Google Scholar

28 Id. at Nr. 50.Google Scholar

29 Id. at Nr. 52.Google Scholar

30 Id. at Nr. 52.Google Scholar

31 Id. at Nr. 52.Google Scholar

32 Id. at Nr. 54.Google Scholar

33 Id. at Nr. 49, 58.Google Scholar

34 Id. at Nr. 56.Google Scholar

35 Id. at Nr. 59et. seq%Google Scholar

36 BVerfGE 49, 89 (126); 61, 260 (275); 83, 130 (142).Google Scholar

37 Like § 11, §§ 70pp Landesbeamtengesetz Ba-Wü or Art. 11 – 22 of the state constitution of Baden-WürttembergGoogle Scholar

38 BVerfG, supra note 1, Nr. 60 et. seq%Google Scholar

39 BVerfGE 88, 203.Google Scholar

40 BVerfG, supra note 1, Nr. 64.Google Scholar

41 Id. at Nr. 65.Google Scholar

42 Id. at Nr. 66.Google Scholar

43 Id. at Nr. 71.Google Scholar

44 BVerfGE 97, 35 (43).Google Scholar

45 BVerfGE, supra note 1, Nr. 39.Google Scholar

46 Id.Google Scholar

47 Id. at Nr. 75.Google Scholar

48 Id.Google Scholar

49 Id.Google Scholar

50 Id. at Nr. 76 et. seq%Google Scholar

51 Id. at Nr. 86.Google Scholar

52 Id. at Nr. 95 et. seq%Google Scholar

53 Id. at Nr. 97.Google Scholar

54 Id. at Nr. 130 et. seq%Google Scholar

55 Id.Google Scholar

56 Id. at Nr. 108.Google Scholar

57 Id. at Nr%106, 110, 116.Google Scholar

58 Id. at Nr. 126.Google Scholar

59 Id. at Nr. 113.Google Scholar

60 Id. at Nr. 113.Google Scholar

61 Id. at Nr. 117.Google Scholar

62 Id. at Nr. 119.Google Scholar

63 Id. at Nr. 124.Google Scholar

64 Id. at Nr. 136.Google Scholar

65 These relations were traditionally termed following O. Mayer “Besonderes Gewaltverhältnis” and encompassed the prison regime, civil servants, soldiers or schools. The Federal Constitutional Court has strengthened the protection of fundamental rights by the demand of legislative acts in this field, too, as the fundamental rights are here applicable as everywhere else, compare e.g. BVerfGE 33, 1 (11) on the applicability in the prison regime. On the current view that the fundamental rights are in principle applicable, that they unfold their effect in the classical status negativus, too and that the civil servant does not lose them by entering the sphere of the state as proposed in older doctrinal constructions, Kunig, in Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht Rn 46-48, 168-174 (Schmidt-Aßmann ed., 12th ed. 2003). Lecheler, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Bd. III, § 72 Rn. 69 (Isensee/Kirchhof eds. 1996).Google Scholar

66 On the various questions raised by Art. 3.2 of the Basic Law compare concisely Britz, Das verfassungsrechtliche Dilemma doppeller Fremdheit: Islamische Bekleidungsvorschriften für Frauen und Grundgesetz, KJ 2003, 95. For Hufen, the protection of Muslim girls against pressure to wear a head scarf is a decisive reason for banning it for teachers. See, Hufen, Das Kopftuch-Urteil des BVerfG – Steine statt Brot oder mehr, 43 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2003).Google Scholar

67 BVerfGE 93, 1 (20) rightly pointed out that such an understanding would be a profanation of its meaning.Google Scholar

68 Mill, J. S. in On Liberty rightly defended with this argument the necessity of civil rights even in democracies against Rousseauians’ ideas of the absolute reign of the democratic volunté générale.Google Scholar

69 Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung 292, et. seq. (1992), on the role of constitutional courts.Google Scholar

70 Mager, in Grundgesetzkommentar I, Art. 4 Rn 65 (v. Münch/Kunig eds. 2000) rightly draws the attention to the question of age, concluded, however, that in early age before 14 teachers should not display any religious symbols.Google Scholar

71 BVerfGE 88, 87 (96).Google Scholar

72 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.Google Scholar

73 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ, 2.12.2000, p. 16.Google Scholar

74 There are various problems involved: The directives are for example only applicable ”within the limits of competence conferred on the community“. A similar provision exists in Art. 13 of the EC. There are voices that maintain that it means that Art. 13 of the EC gives the Community no original competence to legislate on discrimination matters in areas where it has no competence anyway, compare Bell, European Anti-Discrimination Law 131 et. seq. (2002). Others have more extensive view, arguing that if the Community has a competence at all, Art. 13 allows for legislative action in this area, compare on the matter, Mahlmann, Gerechtigkeitsfragen im Gemeinschaftsrecht, in 40/03 Loccumer Protokolle 51 (2003). Accordingly e.g. Art. 149.4 of the EC that explicitly excludes measures of harmonisation in the area of education might be an argument against the applicability of the directives in school matters or for it if one follows a more extensive interpretation. These questions are far from being clarified.Google Scholar

75 See supra, note 17.Google Scholar

76 The directive on religion for sees e.g. that it should be without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which, in a democratic society, are necessary for public security, for the maintenance of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, for the protection of health and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, Art. 2.4. If one assumes an indirect discrimination further justifications are possible.Google Scholar

77 Compare e.g. BVerfG, supra, note 1, Rn 43 – 44; v. Campenhausen, Der heutige Verfassungsstaat und die Religion, in Handbuch des Staatskirchenrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 77 (Listl/Pirson eds, 2. ed., 1994). Stefan Huster, Die ethische Neutralität des Staates, (2002).Google Scholar

78 BVerfGE 41, 29 (49 et. seq.); 52, 223 (236 et. seq.).Google Scholar

79 Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft 99, (Akademie Ausgabe, Bd. VI).Google Scholar

80 Id. at 98 et. seq., 170.Google Scholar