Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)

The applicant was born in DATE and has lived in GPE since DATE , when she left GPE to pursue her medical studies at ORG at ORG . She comes from a traditional family of practising NORP and considers it her religious duty to wear the NORP headscarf .

On DATE the applicant , then in DATE at ORG at ORG , enrolled at ORG at ORG . She says she wore the NORP headscarf during DATE she spent studying medicine at ORG and continued to do so until DATE .

On DATE the Vice - Chancellor of ORG issued a circular , the relevant part of which provides :

“ By virtue of the LAW , the law and regulations , and in accordance with the case - law of ORG and ORG and the resolutions adopted by the university administrative boards , students whose ‘ heads are ORG ( who wear the NORP headscarf ) and students ( including overseas students ) with beards must not be admitted to lectures , courses or tutorials . Consequently , the name and number of any student with a beard or wearing the NORP headscarf must not be added to the lists of registered students . However , students who insist on attending tutorials and entering lecture theatres although their names and numbers are not on the lists must be advised of the position and , should they refuse to leave , their names and numbers must be taken and they must be informed that they are not entitled to attend lectures . If they refuse to leave the lecture theatre , the teacher shall record the incident in a report explaining why it was not possible to give the lecture and shall bring the incident to the attention of the university authorities as a matter of urgency so that disciplinary measures can be taken . ”

On DATE , in accordance with the aforementioned circular , the applicant was denied access by invigilators to a written examination on oncology because she was wearing the NORP headscarf . On DATE the secretariat of the chair of orthopaedic traumatology refused to allow her to enrol because she was wearing a headscarf . On DATE she was refused admission to a neurology lecture and on DATE to a written examination on public health , again for the same reason .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for an order setting aside the circular of CARDINAL DATE . In her written pleadings , she submitted that the circular and its implementation had infringed her rights guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL , in that there was no statutory basis for the circular and the Vice - ORG had no regulatory power in that sphere .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the application , holding that by virtue of section CARDINAL(b ) of LAW ( Law no . DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) a university vice - chancellor , as the executive organ of the university , had power to regulate GPE dress for the purposes of maintaining order . That regulatory power had to be exercised in accordance with the relevant legislation and the judgments of ORG and ORG . Referring to the settled case - law of those courts , ORG held that neither the regulations in issue , nor the measures taken against the applicant , could be considered illegal .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant .

In DATE disciplinary proceedings were brought against the applicant under paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as a result of her failure to comply with the rules on dress .

On DATE , in view of the fact that the applicant had shown by her actions that she intended to continue wearing the headscarf to lectures and/or tutorials , the dean of the faculty declared that her attitude and failure to comply with the rules on dress were not befitting of a student . He therefore decided to issue her with a warning .

On DATE an unauthorised assembly gathered outside the deanery of ORG to protest against the rules on dress .

On DATE the dean of the faculty began disciplinary proceedings against various students , including the applicant , for joining the assembly . On DATE , after hearing her representations , he suspended her from the university for a semester pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG for an order quashing the decision to suspend her . The application was dismissed on DATE by ORG on the ground that , in the light of the material in the case file and the settled case - law on the subject , the impugned measure could not be regarded as illegal .

Following the entry into force of Law no . DATE on DATE ( which provided for students to be given an amnesty in respect of penalties imposed for disciplinary offences and for any resulting disability to be annulled ) , the applicant was granted an amnesty releasing her from all the penalties that had been imposed on her and the resultant disabilities .

On DATE ORG held that PERSON no . DATE made it unnecessary to examine the merits of the applicant ’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant abandoned her studies in GPE and enrolled at ORG , where she pursued her university education .

The relevant provisions of the LAW provide :

“ GPE is a democratic , secular [ laik ] and social ORG based on the rule of law that is respectful of human rights in a spirit of social peace , national solidarity and justice , adheres to the nationalism of PERSON and is underpinned by the fundamental principles set out in the Preamble . ”

“ No amendment may be made or proposed to the provisions of LAW laying down that the ORG shall be a Republic , the provisions of LAW concerning the characteristics of the LOC or the provisions of LAW . ”

“ All individuals shall be equal before the law without any distinction based on language , race , colour , sex , political opinion , philosophical belief , religion , membership of a religious sect or other similar grounds .

Men and women shall have equal rights . The ORG shall take action to achieve such equality in practice .

No privileges shall be granted to any individual , family , group or class .

State bodies and administrative authorities shall act in compliance with the principle of equality before the law in all circumstances . ”

“ Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law and on the grounds set out in special provisions of the LAW , provided always that the essence of such rights and freedoms must remain intact . Any such restriction shall not conflict with the letter or spirit of the LAW or the requirements of a democratic , secular social order and shall comply with the principle of proportionality . ”

“ The rights and freedoms set out in the LAW may not be exercised with a view to undermining the territorial integrity of the ORG , the unity of the nation or the democratic and secular ORG founded on human rights .

No provision of this LAW shall be interpreted in a manner that would grant the ORG or individuals the right to engage in activities intended to destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms embodied in the LAW or to restrict them beyond what is permitted by LAW .

The penalties to which persons who engage in activities that contravene these provisions are liable shall be determined by law . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to freedom of conscience , belief and religious conviction .

Prayers , worship and religious services shall be conducted freely , provided that they do not violate the provisions of LAW .

No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers , worship or religious services or to reveal his or her religious beliefs and convictions ; no one shall be censured or prosecuted for his religious beliefs or convictions .

Education and instruction in religion and ethics shall be provided under the supervision and control of ORG Instruction in religious culture and in morals shall be a compulsory part of the curricula of primary and secondary schools . Other religious education and instruction shall be a matter for individual choice , with the decision in the case of minors being taken by their legal guardians .

No one shall exploit or abuse religion , religious feelings or things held sacred by religion in any manner whatsoever with a view to causing the social , economic , political or legal order of the ORG to be based on religious precepts , even if only in part , or for the purpose of securing political or personal interest or influence thereby . ”

“ No one may be deprived of the right to instruction and education .

The scope of the right to education shall be defined and regulated by law .

Instruction and teaching shall be provided under the supervision and control of the ORG in accordance with the principles and reforms of PERSON and contemporary scientific and educational methods . No educational or teaching institution may be set up that does not follow these rules .

ORG are not absolved from the duty to remain loyal to the LAW by freedom of instruction and teaching .

Primary education shall be compulsory for all citizens of both sexes and provided free of charge in ORG schools .

The rules governing the functioning of private primary and secondary schools shall be regulated by law in keeping with the standards set for ORG schools .

The ORG shall provide able pupils of limited financial means with the necessary aid in the form of scholarships or other assistance to enable them to pursue their studies . It shall take suitable measures to rehabilitate those in need of special training so as to render them useful to society .

Education , teaching , research , and study are the only activities that may be pursued in educational and teaching institutions . These activities shall not be impeded in any way ... ”

“ The decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final . A decision to invalidate a provision shall not be made public without a written statement of reasons .

When striking down a law or legislative decree or a provision thereof , ORG may not act as a quasi - legislature by drafting provisions that would be enforceable .

Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be published immediately in ORG and shall be binding on the legislative , executive , and judicial organs , the administrative authorities , and natural and juristic persons . ”

GPE was founded on the principle that the ORG should be secular ( laik ) . Before and after the proclamation of the LOC on DATE , the public and religious spheres were separated through a series of revolutionary reforms : the abolition of the caliphate on DATE ; the repeal of the constitutional provision declaring ORG the religion of the ORG on DATE ; and , lastly , on DATE , a constitutional amendment according constitutional status to the principle of secularism ( see LAW of DATE and LAW as set out in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The principle of secularism was inspired by developments in NORP society in the period DATE and the proclamation of the Republic . The idea of creating a modern public society in which equality was guaranteed to all citizens without distinction on grounds of religion , denomination or sex had already been mooted in the NORP debates of DATE . Significant advances in women ’s rights were made during this period ( equality of treatment in education , the introduction of a ban on polygamy in DATE , the transfer of jurisdiction in matrimonial cases to the secular courts that had been established in DATE ) .

The defining feature of the NORP ideal was the presence of women in public life and their active participation in society . Consequently , the ideas that women should be freed from religious constraints and that society should be modernised had a common origin . Thus , on DATE LAW was adopted , which provided for equality of the sexes in the enjoyment of civic rights , in particular with regard to divorce and succession . Subsequently , through a constitutional amendment of DATE ( LAW ) , women obtained equal political rights to men .

The first legislation to regulate dress was LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , which treated dress as a modernity issue . Similarly , a ban was imposed on wearing religious attire other than in places of worship or at religious ceremonies , irrespective of the religion or belief concerned , by ORG of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

Under ORG ( LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , religious schools were closed and all schools came under the control of ORG . The LAW is one of the laws with constitutional status that are protected by LAW .

In GPE , wearing the NORP headscarf to school and university is a recent phenomenon which only really began to emerge in DATE . There has been extensive discussion on the issue and it continues to be the subject of lively debate in NORP society . Those in favour of the headscarf see wearing it as a duty and/or a form of expression linked to religious identity . However , the supporters of secularism , who draw a distinction between the başörtüsü ( traditional NORP headscarf , worn loosely ) and the türban ( tight , knotted headscarf hiding the hair and the throat ) , see the NORP headscarf as a symbol of a political ORG . As a result of the accession to power on DATE of a coalition government comprising the NORP PERSON , and the centre - right PERSON , the debate has taken on strong political overtones . The ambivalence displayed by the leaders of FAC , including the then Prime Minister , over their attachment to democratic values , and their advocacy of a plurality of legal systems functioning according to different religious rules for each religious community was perceived in NORP society as a genuine threat to NORP values and civil peace ( see PERSON ( ORG ) and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . ORG , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-II ) .

The first piece of legislation on dress in institutions of higher education was a set of regulations issued by the ORG on DATE requiring staff working for public organisations and institutions and personnel and female students at ORG institutions to wear ordinary , sober , modern dress . The regulations also provided that female members of staff and students should not wear veils in educational institutions .

On DATE ORG issued a circular on the wearing of headscarves in institutions of higher education . The NORP headscarf was banned in lecture theatres . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the regulations were lawful , noting :

“ Beyond being a mere innocent practice , wearing the headscarf is in the process of becoming the symbol of a vision that is contrary to the freedoms of women and the fundamental principles of the Republic . ”

On DATE transitional section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) came into force . It provided :

“ Modern dress or appearance shall be compulsory in the rooms and corridors of institutions of higher education , preparatory schools , laboratories , clinics and multidisciplinary clinics . A veil or headscarf covering the neck and hair may be worn out of religious conviction . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE published in ORG of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the aforementioned provision was contrary to ORG ( secularism ) , CARDINAL ( equality before the law ) and CARDINAL ( freedom of religion ) of the LAW . It also found that it could not be reconciled with the principle of sexual equality implicit , inter alia , in NORP and revolutionary values ( see Preamble and LAW ) .

In their judgment , the Constitutional Court judges explained , firstly , that secularism had acquired constitutional status by reason of the historical experience of the country and the particularities of ORG compared to other religions ; secularism was an essential condition for democracy and acted as a guarantor of freedom of religion and of equality before the law . It also prevented the ORG from showing a preference for a particular religion or belief ; consequently , a secular ORG could not invoke religious conviction when performing its legislative function . They stated , inter alia :

“ Secularism is the civil organiser of political , social and cultural life , based on national sovereignty , democracy , freedom and science . Secularism is the principle which offers the individual the possibility to affirm his or her own personality through freedom of thought and which , by the distinction it makes between politics and religious beliefs , renders freedom of conscience and religion effective . In societies based on religion , which function with religious thought and religious rules , political organisation is religious in character . In a secular regime , religion is shielded from a political role . It is not a tool of the authorities and remains in its respectable place , to be determined by the conscience of each and everyone ... ”

Stressing its inviolable nature , ORG observed that freedom of religion , conscience and worship , which could not be equated with a right to wear any particular religious attire , guaranteed first and foremost the liberty to decide whether or not to follow a religion . It explained that , once outside the private sphere of individual conscience , freedom to manifest one ’s religion could be restricted on public - order grounds to defend the principle of secularism .

Everyone was free to choose how to dress , as the social and religious values and traditions of society also had to be respected . However , when a particular dress code was imposed on individuals by reference to a religion , the religion concerned was perceived and presented as a set of values that were incompatible with those of contemporary society . In addition , in GPE , where the majority of the population were NORP , presenting the wearing of the NORP headscarf as a mandatory religious duty would result in discrimination between practising NORP , non - practising NORP and non - believers on grounds of dress with anyone who refused to wear the headscarf undoubtedly being regarded as opposed to religion or as non - religious .

ORG also said that students had to be permitted to work and pursue their education together in a calm , tolerant and mutually supportive atmosphere without being deflected from that goal by signs of religious affiliation . It found that , irrespective of whether the NORP headscarf was a precept of ORG , granting legal recognition to a religious symbol of that type in institutions of higher education was not compatible with the principle that ORG education must be neutral , as it would be liable to generate conflicts between students with differing religious convictions or beliefs .

On DATE transitional section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL came into force . It provides :

“ Choice of dress shall be free in institutions of higher education , provided that it does not contravene the laws in force . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was published in ORG of DATE , ORG noted that , in the light of the principles it had established in its judgment of DATE , the aforementioned provision did not allow headscarves to be worn in institutions of higher education on religious grounds and so was consistent with the LAW . It stated , inter alia :

“ ... the expression ‘ laws in CARDINAL refers first and foremost to the LAW ... In institutions of higher education , it is contrary to the principles of secularism and equality for the neck and hair to be covered with a veil or headscarf on grounds of religious conviction . In these circumstances , the freedom of dress which the impugned provision permits in institutions of higher education ‘ does not concern dress of a religious nature or the act of covering one ’s neck and hair with a veil and headscarf’ ... The freedom afforded by this provision [ transitional section CARDINAL ] is conditional on its not being contrary to ‘ the laws in CARDINAL . The judgment [ of DATE ] of ORG establishes that covering one ’s neck and hair with the headscarf is first and foremost contrary to LAW . Consequently , the condition set out in the aforementioned section requiring [ choice of ] dress not to contravene the laws in force removes from the scope of freedom of dress the act of ‘ covering one ’s neck and hair with the headscarf’ ... ”

Istanbul University was founded in DATE and is CARDINAL of the main centres of ORG higher education in GPE . It has CARDINAL faculties ( including CARDINAL faculties of medicine – Cerrahpaşa and PERSON ) and CARDINAL schools of higher education . It is attended by CARDINAL students .

In DATE , following a petitioning campaign launched by female students enrolled on the midwifery course at ORG , the Vice - Chancellor circulated a memorandum in which he explained the background to the NORP headscarf issue and the legal basis for the relevant regulations , noting in particular :

“ The ban prohibiting students enrolled on the midwifery course from wearing the headscarf during tutorials is not intended to infringe their freedom of conscience and religion , but to comply with the laws and regulations in force . When doing their work , midwives and nurses wear a uniform . That uniform is described in and identified by regulations issued by ORG ... Students who wish to join the profession are aware of this . Imagine a student of midwifery trying to put a baby in or remove it from an incubator , or assisting a doctor in an operating theatre or maternity unit while wearing a long - sleeved coat . ”

The Vice - Chancellor was concerned that the campaign for permission to wear the NORP headscarf on all university premises had reached the point where there was a risk of its undermining order and causing unrest at the university , the faculty , ORG and ORG . He called on the students to comply with the rules on dress , reminding them , in particular , of the rights of the patients .

A resolution regarding the rules on dress for students and university staff was adopted on DATE by the university executive and provides :

“ The rules governing dress in universities are set out in the laws and regulations . ORG has delivered a judgment which prevents religious attire being worn in universities .

This judgment applies to all students of our University and the academic staff , both administrative and otherwise , at all levels . In particular , nurses , midwives , doctors and vets are required to comply with the regulations on dress , as dictated by scientific considerations and the legislation , during health and applied science tutorials ( on nursing , laboratory work , surgery and microbiology ) . Anyone not complying with the rules on dress will be refused access to tutorials . ”

On DATE a circular signed by the Vice - Chancellor of ORG was distributed containing instructions on the admission of students with beards or wearing the NORP headscarf ( for the text of this circular , see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .

ORG adopted a resolution ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Students at ORG shall comply with the legal principles and rules on dress set out in the decisions of ORG and higher judicial bodies .

Students shall not wear clothes that symbolise or manifest any religion , faith , race , or political or ideological persuasion in any institution or department of the university , or on any of its LOC .

Students shall comply with the rules requiring specific clothes to be worn for occupational reasons in the institutions and departments at which they are enrolled .

Photographs supplied by students to their institution or department [ must be taken ] from the ‘ front’ ‘ with head and neck ORG . They must be DATE and make the student readily identifiable .

Anyone displaying an attitude that is contrary to the aforementioned points or who , through his words , writings or deeds , encourages such an attitude shall be liable to action under the provisions of ORG . ”

The Students Disciplinary Procedure Rules , which were published in ORG of DATE , prescribe CARDINAL forms of disciplinary penalty : a warning , a reprimand , temporary suspension of DATE , temporary suspension of CARDINAL or CARDINAL semesters , and expulsion .

Merely wearing the NORP headscarf on university premises does not constitute a disciplinary offence .

By virtue of paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules , a student whose “ behaviour and attitude are not befitting of students ” will be liable to a warning . A reprimand will be issued , inter alia , to students whose conduct is such as to lose them the respect and trust which students are required to command , or who disrupt lectures , seminars , tutorials in laboratories or workshops ( paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( e ) ) . Students who directly or indirectly restrict the freedom of others to learn and teach or whose conduct is liable to disturb the calm , tranquillity and industriousness required in institutions of higher education or who engage in political activities in such institutions are liable to temporary suspension of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( c ) ) . Paragraph CARDINAL ( j ) lays down that students who organise or take part in unauthorised meetings on university premises are liable to CARDINAL or CARDINAL semesters’ suspension .

The procedure for investigating disciplinary complaints is governed by CARDINAL of the Rules . LAW and CARDINAL provide that the rights of defence of students must be respected and the disciplinary board must take into account the reasons that caused the student to transgress the rules . All disciplinary measures are subject to judicial review in the administrative courts .

Since universities are public - law bodies by virtue of LAW , they enjoy a degree of autonomy , subject to ORG control , that is reflected in the fact that they are run by management organs , such as the vice - chancellor , with delegated statutory powers .

The relevant parts of LAW no . CARDINAL provide :

( b ) Vice - chancellors shall have the following powers , competence and responsibilities :

To chair meetings of university boards , implement their resolutions , examine proposals by the university boards and take such decisions as shall be necessary , and ensure that institutions forming part of the university function in a coordinated manner ;

To supervise and monitor the university departments and university staff at all levels .

It is the vice - chancellor who shall have primary responsibility for taking safety measures and for supervising and monitoring the administrative and scientific aspects of the functioning of the university ... ”

The monitoring and supervisory power conferred on the vice - chancellor by LAW no . CARDINAL is subject to the requirement of lawfulness and to scrutiny by the administrative courts .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON , PERSON ) , which was published in ORG , ORG stated , inter alia :

“ The legislature and executive are bound by both the operative provisions of judgments and the reasoning taken as a whole . Judgments and the reasons stated in them lay down the standards by which legislative activity will be measured and establish guidelines for such activity . ”

For DATE the place of the NORP headscarf in ORG education has been the subject of debate across LOC . In most NORP countries , the debate has focused mainly on primary and secondary schools . However , in GPE , GPE and GPE it has concerned not just the question of individual liberty , but also the political meaning of the NORP headscarf . These are the only member GPE to have introduced regulations on wearing the NORP headscarf in universities .

In GPE , where secularism is regarded as CARDINAL of the cornerstones of NORP values , legislation was passed on DATE regulating , in accordance with the principle of secularism , the wearing of signs or dress manifesting a religious affiliation in ORG primary and secondary schools . The legislation inserted a new LAW in LAW which provides : “ In ORG primary and secondary schools , the wearing of signs or dress by which pupils overtly manifest a religious affiliation is prohibited . The school rules shall state that the institution of disciplinary proceedings shall be preceded by dialogue with the pupil . ”

The Act applies to all ORG schools and educational institutions , including post - baccalaureate courses ( preparatory classes for entrance to the grandes écoles and vocational training courses ) . It does not apply to ORG universities . In addition , as a circular of CARDINAL DATE makes clear , it only concerns “ ... signs , such as the NORP headscarf , however named , the kippa or a cross that is manifestly oversized , which make the wearer ’s religious affiliation immediately identifiable ” .

In GPE there is no general ban on wearing religious signs at school . In ORG a decree of CARDINAL DATE stipulates that education shall be neutral within ORG Pupils are in principle allowed to wear religious signs . However , they may do so only if human rights , the reputation of others , national security , public order , and public health and morals are protected and internal rules complied with . Further , teachers must not permit religious or philosophical proselytism under their authority or the organisation of political militancy by or on behalf of pupils . The decree stipulates that restrictions may be imposed by school rules . On DATE ORG issued a decree intended to institute equality of treatment . In ORG , there is no uniform policy among schools on whether to allow religious or philosophical signs to be worn . Some do , others do not . When pupils are permitted to wear such signs , restrictions may be imposed on grounds of hygiene or safety .

In other countries ( GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) , in some cases following a protracted legal debate , the ORG education authorities permit NORP pupils and students to wear the NORP headscarf .

In GPE , where the debate focused on whether teachers should be allowed to wear the NORP headscarf , ORG stated on DATE in a case between a teacher and PERSON that the lack of any express statutory prohibition meant that teachers were entitled to wear the headscarf . Consequently , it imposed a duty on the Länder to lay down rules on dress if they wished to prohibit the wearing of the NORP headscarf in ORG schools .

NORP In GPE there is no special legislation governing the wearing of the headscarf , turban or kippa . In general , it is considered that a ban on wearing the headscarf will only be justified if it poses a health or safety hazard for pupils .

In GPE a tolerant attitude is shown to pupils who wear religious signs . Difficulties with respect to the NORP headscarf are rare . The issue has also been debated in the context of the elimination of racial discrimination in schools in order to preserve their multicultural character ( see , in particular , PERSON , ORG DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . ORG , whose opinions have recommendation status only , also considered the issue of the NORP headscarf in DATE in ORG case , which ended in a compromise between a private school and members of the family of CARDINAL sisters who wished to be allowed to wear the NORP headscarf at the school . The school agreed to allow them to wear the headscarf provided it was navy blue ( the colour of the school uniform ) , kept fastened at the neck and not decorated .

In NORP ( On the application of PERSON ) v. Headteacher and Governors of ORG ( [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) ) , ORG had to decide a dispute between the school and a NORP pupil wishing to wear the jilbab ( a full - length gown ) . The school required pupils to wear a uniform , one of the possible options being the headscarf and the shalwar kameeze ( long traditional garments from the NORP subcontinent ) . In DATE ORG dismissed the pupil ’s application , holding that there had been no violation of her freedom of religion . However , that judgment was reversed in DATE by ORG , which accepted that there had been interference with the pupil ’s freedom of religion , as a minority of NORP in GPE considered that a religious duty to wear the jilbab from DATE and the pupil was genuinely of that opinion . No justification for the interference had been provided by the school authorities , as the decision - making process was not compatible with freedom of religion .

In GPE there is no express statutory prohibition on pupils’ wearing religious head coverings in State schools . By virtue of CARDINAL royal decrees of CARDINAL DATE , which are applicable in primary and secondary schools unless the competent authority – the autonomous community – has introduced specific measures , the school governors have power to issue school rules which may include provisions on dress . Generally speaking , ORG schools allow the headscarf to be worn .

In GPE and GPE the veil can be worn at school . However , a distinction is made between the burka ( the term used to describe the full veil covering the whole of the body and the face ) and the niqab ( a veil covering all the upper body with the exception of the eyes ) . In GPE mandatory directives were issued in DATE by ORG . These allow schools to prohibit the burka and niqab , provided they do so in a spirit of dialogue on the common values of equality of the sexes and respect for the democratic principle on which the education system is based .

In the GPE , where the question of the NORP headscarf is considered from the standpoint of discrimination rather than of freedom of religion , it is generally tolerated . In DATE a non - binding directive was issued . Schools may require pupils to wear a uniform provided that the rules are not discriminatory and are included in the school prospectus and that the punishment for transgressions is not disproportionate . A ban on the burka is regarded as justified by the need to be able to identify and communicate with pupils . In addition , ORG ruled in DATE that a ban on wearing the veil during physical education classes for safety reasons was not discriminatory .

In a number of other countries ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) , the issue of the NORP headscarf does not yet appear to have given rise to any detailed legal debate .

Among the various texts adopted by ORG on higher education , should be cited , first of all , ORG DATE ) on the access of minorities to higher education , which was adopted on DATE , and ORG . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on access to higher education , which was adopted on CARDINAL DATE .

Another relevant instrument in this sphere is the joint ORG on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in LOC , which was signed in GPE on DATE and came into force on DATE .

The preamble to the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in LOC states :

“ Conscious of the fact that the right to education is a human right , and that higher education , which is instrumental in the pursuit and advancement of knowledge , constitutes an exceptionally rich cultural and scientific asset for both individuals and society ... ”

DATE . On DATE ORG Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on access to higher education . In the preamble to the recommendation it is stated :

“ ... higher education has a key role to play in the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the strengthening of pluralistic democracy and tolerance [ and ] ... widening opportunities for members of all groups in society to participate in higher education can contribute to securing democracy and building confidence in situations of social tension ... ”

Likewise , LAW ( DATE ) on the access of minorities to higher education , which was adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE , provides :

“ ORG is a fundamental human right and therefore access to all levels , including higher education , should be equally available to all permanent residents of the GPE signatories to ORG . ”