The case concerned the applicants’ exclusion from school as a result of their refusal to remove their headscarves during sports classes. On many occasions in January 1999 the applicants went to physical education and sports classes wearing their headscarves and refused to take them off, despite repeated requests to do so by their teacher, who explained that wearing a headscarf was incompatible with physical education classes.

The domestic court held that, by attending physical education and sports classes in dress that would not enable them to take part in the classes in question, the applicants had failed to comply with the duty to attend classes. Further, it was ruled that their attitude had created an atmosphere of tension within the school and that, on the basis of all the factors involved, their expulsion from the school had been justified and proportionate, regardless of the proposal they had made at the end of January to wear a hat instead of a headscarf.

Relying on Article 9 (the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the applicants complained to the ECHR of an infringement of their right to practice their religion. However, the ECHR held that there had been no violation of Article 9.

The Court referred to earlier judgments in which it had held that the national authorities were obliged to take great care to ensure that, in keeping with the principle of respect for pluralism and the freedom of others, the manifestation by pupils of their religious beliefs on school premises did not take on the nature of an ostentatious act that would constitute a source of pressure and exclusion. In the Court’s view, that concern did indeed appear to have been answered by the French secular model.

Also, the domestic court’s concern that the wearing of a veil was incompatible with sports classes for reasons of health or safety was not unreasonable. It accepted that the penalty imposed was only the result of the applicants’ refusal to comply with the rules applicable on the school premises – of which they had been properly informed – and not of their religious convictions.