Muslim Headscarf Case
Germany Federal Constitutional Court
Judgment 2 BvR 1436/02, 108 BVerfGE 282 (2003)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
Fereshta Ludin (plaintiff) was a Muslim woman who had lived in Germany since 1987 and had been a German national since 1995. Ludin trained to become a teacher and passed the required examinations. When Ludin applied to the Stuttgart School Authority in Baden-Württemberg for a teaching position, she was rejected for the position because she was unwilling to teach without wearing a headscarf, which she was required to wear as a part of her religion. Ludin objected to the rejection, citing Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Basic Law, which provided that German nationals had a fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Stuttgart School Authority rejected Ludin’s argument on the basis that Ludin’s freedom of religion was limited by students’ fundamental right to be free from religious influences and the state’s obligation to ensure religious neutrality in its schools. Ludin appealed to the Stuttgart Administrative Court, which dismissed her complaint, finding that wearing a religious headscarf legitimately constituted a lack of aptitude under § 11(1) of the Baden-Württemberg Civil Service Act. Ludin appealed again to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed her appeal on the theory that a civil servant must be willing to accept some restriction on religious freedom in order to meet the state’s requirement for religious neutrality. Ludin appealed once more to the Federal Constitutional Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hassemer, Sommer, Broß, Osterloh, Lübbe-Wolff, J.J.)
Dissent (Jentsch, Di Fabio, Mellinghoff, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.