The reference legislation at national level
​
In Italy, there is no state regulation explicitly prohibiting the wearing of the veil or other types of religious clothing. In particular, the wearing of garments such as the niqāb or burqa in public spaces is not forbidden, even if they make it difficult to identify the person wearing them.
Article 5 of Law No. 152 of 22 May 1975[1] prohibits the use of protective helmets or devices that may obstruct the recognition of a person in public places or places open to the public, unless there is a justified reason. This provision was originally designed to deal with the politically motivated terrorism of the 1970s in Italy, but some municipalities proposed an interpretation to also prohibit the use of the 'veil covering the face'. However, the Council of State issued a ruling in 2008 (ruling no. 3076/2008) clarifying that the burqa and niqāb are generally not intended to avoid recognition, but rather to follow a religious tradition. Consequently, Article 5 cannot be used as a legal basis to prohibit the wearing of the full veil for religious or cultural reasons. According to the ruling, "An absolute prohibition exists only on the occasion of events taking place in a public place or open to the public, except for those of a sporting nature involving such use. In other cases, the use of means potentially capable of making recognition difficult is prohibited only if it occurs ‘without justified reason.’ With reference to the 'veil covering the face', or in particular the burqa, this is a use that is generally not intended to prevent recognition, but constitutes the implementation of a tradition of certain populations and cultures."
"It is without prejudice to the fact that - still according to the Council of State - this interpretation does not exclude that in certain places or by specific orders different rules of conduct, incompatible with the aforesaid use, may be provided for, also by administrative means, provided of course that they find a reasonable and legitimate justification on the basis of specific and sectorial requirements."
In Lombardy, a ban on access to regional public facilities has been introduced for those who conceal their faces, including for religious reasons. This ban was established by the Deliberation of the Regional Council (D.g.r.) of 10 December 2015, no. X/4553. The Court of Milan confirmed the legitimacy of this restriction in 2017, rejecting an appeal filed by some associations. The Court considered the prohibition justified by the need to ensure the identification of individuals accessing regional facilities for reasons of public safety. The Court of Appeal concurred with these reasons in ruling No. 4330/2019, arguing that the resolution is not discriminatory, but is intended to solve problems of public order and security in certain public places.
In the case of Veneto, a similar regional regulation (No 2 of 2017) was issued prohibiting entry into regional public facilities for those who cover their faces, even if for religious reasons. Again, the restrictions were justified by the need for identification and control for public security.
The use of communication signs prohibiting entry with a covered face, containing images of people wearing helmets, balaclavas and burqas, was criticised by the courts, as was the unwillingness of the regions to reach a conciliatory solution. However, both courts concluded that the ban on fully veiled Muslim women was proportionate and reasonable, as it is limited in time, location and motivated by security reasons (see Salem 2020: 385).

Local authorities
Cultural practices related to the wearing of the veil have been the subject of several attempts to restrict it by some local authority representatives. These attempts continue to this day. However, in Italy, in the light of existing case law and regulations, the scope for imposing a general ban on wearing the veil or other types of clothing related to specific religious and cultural practices that do not conform to Western fashion (e.g. the burkini) in a public place or open to the public is extremely limited, if not non-existent.
In particular, the route of trade union ordinances is precluded mainly because, in the light of the case law of the Council of State and the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court ruling no. 115 of 2011), it is not considered a legally adequate basis. More precisely, the possibility of introducing such prohibitions by means of contingent and urgent ordinances (pursuant to Article 54(4) of the TUEL) had been envisaged by some mayors. However, in order to adopt a contingent and urgent ordinance, the mayor must demonstrate the presence of local emergency situations requiring an immediate response. This condition makes the scope for introducing a full veil ban extremely limited.
Even if a contingent and urgent measure were adopted by the mayor, it would still have to comply with the fundamental principles of the legal system (principles of equality, reasonableness and non-discrimination).
Moreover, any measure must be proportionate to the objective it is intended to achieve. A general ban on wearing the full veil would have to be seen as an extreme measure and it would be necessary to demonstrate that there are no less invasive alternatives to address the problem. (On this topic, see Cavaggion 2016).

Anti-veil laws in Europe
​
In Europe, regulatory references concerning the prohibition or regulation of the use of the burqa and similar garments vary from state to state. Examples of regulatory references in some European countries are given below:

France

France is one of the European countries best known for having introduced Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004, which regulates, in application of the principle of secularism, the use of signs or clothing manifesting religious affiliation in schools, high schools and public colleges.
The law affirms the principle of secularism, which is one of the fundamental principles of the French Republic, and aims to preserve religious neutrality in public schools. Accordingly, it prohibits the use of visible religious symbols, such as the Islamic veil, Sikh turban, Christian cross, yarmulke and other religious symbols, in public schools.
Law No. 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010 prohibits covering the face in public spaces. Specifically, according to Article 1 'Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage' 'No one may, in public space, wear clothing intended to conceal his or her face'. In fact, this rule prohibits the full veil or any other covering of the face in public places. The Grande Chambre of the European Court of Human Rights, in July 2014, ruled that the general prohibition of covering one's face in public places, as set out in French Law No. 2010-1192, does not constitute a violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (S.A.S. v. France GC - 43835/11) In the context of the judgment GC - 43835/11, the position of the French Government is interesting, according to which, Law No. 2010-1192 is aimed at both the protection of public security and respect for the "socle minimal des valeurs d'une société démocratique et ouverte", which translates into respect for gender equality, human dignity and the maintenance of the minimum requirements necessary for harmonious coexistence, known as "vivre ensemble". Of these values, only the last one is linked by the European Court of Human Rights to the 'protection of the rights and freedoms of others', as stipulated in Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and is therefore recognised as a legitimate aim of the law in question (Olivito 2014).
In 2021, measures were introduced to prevent indoctrination by Islamist groups with the aim of limiting the public visibility of Islam (Law No. 2021-1109 of 24 August 2021). While previous laws had banned religious symbols, the 2021 law attempted to distinguish more clearly between the right of Muslims to practise their religion and the need to prevent Islamist indoctrination. However, the law did not adequately address the inequalities and discrimination suffered by post-colonial minorities, leaving many Muslims in a disadvantaged position and fueling discontent that Islamists can leverage (Hargreaves 2023).
In anticipation of the reopening of public schools in France in 2023, Education Minister Gabriel Attal issued a circular banning the wearing in class of the abaya, a long dress that completely covers the body and is widely used by women in the Middle East, as well as increasingly by young French Muslim women. The abaya is originally a traditional garment, but in some contexts it can be interpreted as a sign of religious affiliation, although its meaning may vary. France is the first western country to impose a ban on the wearing of the abaya at school. The French decision raises questions about secularity and the perception of religious symbols in educational institutions, as well as the challenge of balancing cultural diversity with the promotion of the secularity of the State (Audureau 2023). The Council of Muslim Worship (CFCM) took a position on the issue and pointed out that this legislation increases the potential risk of discrimination. According to the CFCM, the abaya is considered a traditional and not a religious garment. This controversy is of great relevance, considering that approximately 10% of the French population is of the Islamic faith (Usan 2023).

Belgium 

In Belgium, individual freedom is fundamental in both private and public space, unless one commits a crime or incites hatred, discrimination or violence. However, in public spaces such as streets, squares and train stations, it is forbidden to wear clothing that completely covers the face. This law is known as the 'anti-burqa law' because it applies to women who wish to wear the burqa or niqāb, which cover the face. Women who violate this law are liable to fines and/or imprisonment. The anti-burqa law has been the subject of controversy and conflicting judgments by international courts. The Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that the Belgian law does not violate human rights, as it is justified by the need to facilitate social coexistence and communication between people. However, the UN Human Rights Committee considered that this regulation was excessively strict, especially for women who wear such clothing for religious reasons.
The issue of the religious veil has also been addressed in Belgian state schools. The Constitutional Court (Cour const., 4 juin 2020, no 81/2020) legitimised the prohibition of religious signs, such as the Islamic veil, in educational institutions on the basis of a 'total' concept of neutrality.
Furthermore, with regard to identity cards and passports, headgear may only be worn for religious or medical reasons and if the face is fully visible (Vanbellingen 2022).

Austria

In Austria, "Bundesgesetz über das Verbot der Verhüllung des Gesichts in der Öffentlichkeit" ["Federal Law prohibiting the covering of the face in public places."] (abbreviated Anti-Gesichtsverhüllungsgesetz, AGesVG [Anti-Face Covering Law]), which came into force on 1 October 2017, prohibits the covering of the face in public places. This law is part of an 'integration package' aimed at promoting participation in society and peaceful coexistence in Austria. The debate on the law started with the idea of banning the burqa in Austria, but later the focus shifted to a general ban on face covering. This development was influenced by the arguments of conservative politicians and far-right parties, who supported the ban as a measure against an alleged threat to national security. The ban on facial covering is based on the argument of the need for face-to-face communication in social interactions. This argument was also supported by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the face-covering ban in France. However, this argument has been criticised by some feminist observers, who see this as a restriction of individual freedoms.
The law has been applied in controversial ways, such as the request to remove clown masks or the cases of people wearing protective masks during the pandemic. These examples raise questions about the interpretation of the law and its consistent application. The legislation has not been without public criticism. Some citizens reacted to the ban by paying the fines imposed on Muslim women, claiming that they wanted to uphold religious freedom (Holzleithner 2018).

Denmark

On 1 August 2018, a ban on wearing the niqāb or burka in public places came into force in Denmark. The law has been the subject of controversy and discussion regarding religious freedom.
The wording of this law provides for a general ban on covering one's face in order to ensure the protection of public order. However, this ban was understood to be specifically aimed at Muslim women. Indeed, in the parliamentary debate, the discussion was mainly about the position of Muslim women and their oppressed status. According to some members of the Danish Islamic community, this debate was based on a stereotypical representation of Islam. Among the reactions to this measure, an interesting one seems to be the one made by a group of women who founded the organisation 'Kvinder i Dialog' (Women in Dialogue) to defend their right to religious freedom and, specifically, their right to practise their religion by wearing the niqāb and covering their faces in public places (See Daverkosen 2019).

Switzerland

​In Switzerland, a partial ban on the full veil was approved in a referendum in 2021. The law prohibits the wearing of the burqa and niqāb in public places. This initiative introduced a new provision in Article 10 of the Swiss Constitution. This provision states that no one may conceal his or her face in public spaces or in places that are accessible to the public or in which services are provided that are in principle accessible to the public. Furthermore, no one may force a person to conceal their face because of their gender. The prohibition does not apply to places of worship. Deviating behaviour can only be justified on grounds of health, safety, climatic conditions and local customs.
Despite the fact that the Federal Council and Parliament had recommended the rejection of the initiative, it was approved. The new regulation is not immediately applicable. It will primarily be the responsibility of the cantons, which are responsible for the use of public space, to determine how to implement this provision (on this topic see Ceffa and Grasso 2021).

Germany

Germany: In Germany, the wearing of the veil is considered an expression of freedom of faith. In this sense, there is no general ban on the wearing of the full veil, since it would be contrary to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the German Basic Law [Grundgesetz]. More precisely, it falls within the protection guaranteed by the freedom of religion enshrined in Article 4(1) and (2) of the German Basic Law (GG) (see in this sense Urteil vom 24. September 2003 - 2 BvR 1436/02).
However, civil servants cannot cover their faces and some Bundesländer (e.g. Bavaria and Lower Saxony)[3] have banned the full veil in public schools.
The Bundesregierung (federal government) banned covering the face in certain public contexts in 2017. For example, it is forbidden to cover the face when driving a vehicle or for public employees such as teachers, female soldiers and judges while performing their duties. In addition, women wearing full veils are required to show their faces in specific situations.

Court of Justice 
​
In the European legal landscape, a number of rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the Islamic headscarf have been the subject of debate in issues related to religious freedom and workers' rights in the workplace.

The CJEU, in a judgment of 14 March 2017 (Case C-157/15, Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV), ruled that an employer, in a private company, does not necessarily engage in direct discrimination based on religion or belief if it prohibits employees from visibly wearing political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace. At the most, its conduct may constitute indirect discrimination if it can be shown that this apparently neutral prohibition creates a particular disadvantage for persons with a specific religion or ideology.

More precisely, such an attitude can only be justified if the employer has a legitimate reason, such as the promotion of an attitude of political, philosophical or religious neutrality towards customers, and if it uses appropriate and necessary means to achieve that objective. The same court (Case C188/15 Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA) had made it clear that a customer's wish not to be served by an employee wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be regarded as an essential and determining requirement for the employer's work,[2] since such a requirement had to be objectively dictated by the nature of the professional activities in question or the context in which they are carried out, not by subjective considerations.
In a judgment of 15 July 2021 (Joined Cases C-804/18 Wabe and C-341/19 Müller Handels), the Court of Justice also ruled that the notion of 'religion' according to Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 encompasses both internal religious convictions and the public manifestation of religious belief. Wearing symbols or clothing to express one's religion or belief falls within the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


Moreover, the right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 10 of the Charter is equivalent to the right guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
However, the July 2021 ruling allows employers to prohibit employees from wearing religious and other symbols, although it specifies the conditions under which the employer may exercise this power. In short, an employer may only prohibit employees from wearing religious headscarves if it can demonstrate that such a prohibition is strictly necessary for reasons of neutrality and that it is applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. (See Howard 2022, 2023).

The Islamic veil and religious freedom in the European Court of Human Rights 
​
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has linked the wearing of the Islamic headscarf to the exercise of the right to religious freedom enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Numerous religious freedom-related cases addressed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concern the wearing of religious clothing or symbols, with a particular emphasis on the Islamic hijab. Most of these cases occurred in France, Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Switzerland, countries with constitutional traditions of state secularism and restrictive rules on religious symbols and clothing. The decisions of the plaintiffs in these cases depend mainly on the context in which such symbols or clothing were worn.

• With regard to civil servants, the ECHR has generally upheld the right of states to prohibit religious dress in the name of secularism.
• With regard to students, the ECHR confirmed the right of state school systems to prohibit religious clothing in order to preserve secularism.
• In general, the ECHR has upheld the right of states to ban the niqāb in public spaces in the name of coexistence and the protection of the rights of others.
• However, in some situations, the ECHR has found a violation of the Convention when sanctions were imposed on groups of protesters wearing religious clothing in public places.
• Regarding religious dress in the courts, the ECHR has recognised violations of Article 9 of the Convention in some cases when restrictions on religious dress seemed unjustified.

Overall, the ECHR has shown flexibility in the application of the principles of religious freedom and secularism, attempting to balance these rights according to the specific circumstances of each case. (See, on this issue, Mose 2023:59-60)

Six distinct positions on the use of the veil in Western contexts The issue of the use of the Islamic headscarf is the subject of a long-standing debate. We can outline in this respect six distinct positions on the use of the (Islamic) veil in Western contexts.

1. This position defends the fundamental right to freedom of religion, which includes the right to wear the veil as an expression of one's faith. Supporters of this perspective consider that regulations restricting or prohibiting the wearing of the veil are a violation of this constitutional right.

2. Some regulations restricting the wearing of headscarves have been enacted with the aim of preserving public safety. Those who support this position believe that the headscarf may hinder recognition of people and create identification problems, especially in sensitive contexts such as airports or government facilities.

3. This perspective focuses on the issue of gender equality, arguing that the veil, particularly the niqab or burqa, is a symbol of women's oppression and can limit their participation in society. Anti-veil laws are seen from this perspective as a means to combat gender discrimination.

4. In some nations, such as France, secularism is a fundamental principle and laws banning the veil in some public institutions are justified by the need to maintain the separation between religion and state. Supporters of this perspective believe that the veil may undermine the religious neutrality of the state.

5. Some jurisdictions try to find a compromise between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, adopting laws that regulate the wearing of the veil in certain contexts, such as schools or courts, but allow its freedom in other places. This position seeks a balance between different rights and interests at stake.

6. Supporters of cultural tolerance. This perspective promotes cultural tolerance and recognises that people should be free to express their cultural and religious identity through clothing, as long as this does not pose a danger to public health or safety.

Criticism of the wearing of the veil or other religious garments by women is often based on the idea that it represents a symbol of oppression and discrimination of Muslim women. However, it is important to recognise that the situation varies greatly between Muslim and European countries. While in some Muslim countries a certain type of clothing is imposed on women by law, in Europe women may wear it by personal choice or be pressured to do so for family, religious or cultural reasons. Absolute bans on the wearing of certain types of religious clothing may lead to the isolation of women who wear it, rather than to their liberation. It is essential to address the issue of headscarf wearing by adopting an open attitude, assessing different situations on a case-by-case basis, and providing support to women who denounce a situation of oppression, suffering and prevarication, regardless of their belonging to a particular cultural context (Mancini 2015).

NOTEs

[1] In 2010, an amendment was proposed to Article 5 of the law of 22 May 1975 (Bill No. 3205 tabled on 11 February 2010) aimed at specifically including "female clothing associated with women of the Islamic faith known as burqa and niqab". (See Mancini 2015).

[2] Cf. Sent. civil cassation sez. un., 09/09/2021, (ud. 06/07/2021, dep. 09/09/2021), no. 24414. On this topic see also (Ruggiu 2018)

[3] Anon. 2020. "Drei Bundesländer wollen Vollverschleierung an Schulen verbieten". domradio.de. Retrieved 25 September 2023 (https://www.domradio.de/artikel/debatte-um-burka-und-nikab-drei-bundeslaender-wollen-vollverschleierung-schulen-verbieten).