CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 106 March 2008 El Morsli v. France - 15585/06 Decision 4.3.2008 [Section III] Article 9 Article 9-1 Manifest religion or belief Refusal of an entry visa for France because of the unwillingness of the applicant, a Moroccan national, to remove her veil at the security checkpoint at the consular offices: inadmissible   The applicant, a woman of the Muslim faith who wears a veil or headscarf, is married to a French national who lives in France. She went to the Consulate General of France in Marrakesh to apply for an entry visa so that she could join her husband in France, but when she refused to remove her headscarf for an identity check she was not allowed into the consulate. She then submitted a visa application by registered letter. Her application was refused. On the applicant’s behalf, her husband lodged an appeal against that refusal with the visa Appeals Board. The appeal was rejected for non-compliance by the applicant with the regulations in force. The applicant’s husband lodged a new appeal, on points of law, with the Conseil d’Etat on his wife’s behalf, relying, in particular, on his wife’s right to respect for her family life and her freedom of religion. The Conseil d’Etat dismissed the appeal. Inadmissible   under Article 9: The measure complained of – requiring the applicant to remove her headscarf for an identity check – amounted to a restriction. The applicant did not suggest that the measure was not prescribed by law. It pursued at least one of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 9 § 2, namely public safety and the protection of public order. As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court saw no reason to depart from its reasoning in the Phull v. France case, concerning security checks at the entrance to a consulate, including the identification of persons wishing to enter, which it considered necessary for public safety. Furthermore, the security check required the headscarf to be removed only for a very brief moment. As to the applicant’s offer to remove her headscarf only in the presence of a woman, even assuming that the question had been put to the consular authorities, the fact that they had not instructed a female staff member to verify the applicant’s identity had not overstepped the margin of appreciation left to the State in the matter. There had thus been no disproportionate interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of religion: manifestly ill-founded . (see also Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005, Information Note no. 71).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes