The report argued that the wearing of full-face veils went against the French republican values of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, saying that wearing of the veil was to be considered a sign of submission, which violated the ideals of liberty and gender equality, while also violating the principle of fraternity by hampering ordinary social contact.
Prime Minister François Fillon on 29 January 2010 ordered the Council of State to carry out a study on the legal possibilities for banning the veil specifically or face-covering generally.
[12][13][14] Written comments were given by the organizations Amnesty International, Liberty, Open Society Justice Initiative, and ARTICLE 19, along with Human Rights Centre of Ghent University[14] and the Belgian Government.
- The prohibition provided for in section 1 hereof shall not apply if the clothing is prescribed or authorised by primary or secondary legislation, if it is justified for health or occupational reasons, or if it is worn in the context of sports, festivities or artistic or traditional events."
An obligation to follow a citizenship course, as provided at paragraph 8 of Article 131-16 of the Criminal Code, may be imposed in addition to or instead of the payment of a fine."
[20] The French government's claim that a ban of the use full-face veils was necessary for public safety was not found valid by the Court as it argued public safety concerns could be addressed by more limited restrictions which the Court had previously accepted; for instance the obligation to show the face for identification purposes in certain circumstances.
Regarding the gender equality argument the Court wrote "a State Party cannot invoke gender equality in order to ban a practice that is defended by women – such as the applicant – in the context of the exercise of the rights enshrined in those provisions, unless it were to be understood that individuals could be protected on that basis from the exercise of their own fundamental rights and freedoms.
"[23] In contrast, the Court found that "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society" could under certain circumstances be considered "protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
It wrote: "The Court takes into account the respondent State's point that the face plays an important role in social interaction.
That being said, in view of the flexibility of the notion of "living together" and the resulting risk of abuse, the Court must engage in a careful examination of the necessity of the impugned limitation".
The court wrote: "From that perspective, the respondent State is seeking to protect a principle of interaction between individuals, which in its view is essential for the expression not only of pluralism, but also of tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society".
[26] Underlining that countries should have a wide margin of appreciation regarding questions where views in democratic countries can legitimately differ, the Court concluded that the ban could" be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued, namely the preservation of the conditions of "living together" as an element of the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
[27] The minority disagreed with the conclusion and argued that the decision "sacrifices concrete individual rights guaranteed by the Convention to abstract principles".
[31] The minority found that even if "living together" should be considered a legitimate aim within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9, the ban was still disproportionate.
For those few who use the veil, the consequences of a ban was on the other side large, as they might have to choose between being confined to their home or violating their own religious convictions or cultural practice.
[32] In conclusion the minority wrote «we find that the criminalization of the wearing of a full-face veil is a measure which is disproportionate to the aim of protecting the idea of "living together" – an aim which cannot readily be reconciled with the convention's restrictive catalogue of grounds for interference with basic human rights» and they concluded that the ban violated Articles 8 and 9.