CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 May 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 35357/24 Emela MUJANOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 26 November 2024 communicated on 9 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a prohibition , based on the 2017 Regulation on uniforms, to wear a hijab, a traditional Islamic headscarf, with a military uniform in armed forces. The applicant is a member of the Armed Force of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Relying on Article 9 of the Convention she complains that as a Muslim woman she is prevented from manifesting her religion because she is not allowed to wear a hijab with the military uniform. Relying further on Article   14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 9, the applicant complains that such prohibition amounts to discrimination on the ground of sex because Muslim male members of the armed force are permitted to wear a beard while in uniform as an expression of their religion. On 11 July 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as manifestly ill-founded finding that the interference with her freedom of religion had pursued a legitimate aim of preventing negative interpersonal relations among members of the military and of protecting the principle of neutrality. As to discrimination, the Constitutional Court held that Muslim male members of armed force who wore beards were a comparative category for the purpose of Article 14, but that the difference in treatment had been justified on the basis that beards, unlike the hijab, were not exclusively a religious symbol. That decision was served on the applicant on 1 August 2024. The applicant currently works in the civilian sector of armed forces where she does not have to wear a military uniform and can wear a hijab. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom to manifest her religion, contrary to Article   9 of the Convention, as a result of the prohibition to wear a hijab with military uniform (see Ebrahimian v. France , no.   64846/11, ECHR 2015; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos.   48420/10 and 3 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts) ; and, mutatis mutandis , Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 57792/15, 5 December 2017)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in the exercise of her freedom to manifest her religion (see, Eweida and Others , cited above; Kurtulmuş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; and Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no.   42393/98, ECHR 2001-V)? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison to male members of armed forces wearing a beard? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?