Skip to content

ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Primary Menu
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Countries198
    • National Constitutions: History, Purpose, and Key Aspects
  • Judgment
  • Book
  • Legal Brief
    • Legal Eagal
  • LearnToday
  • HLJ
    • Supreme Court Case Notes
    • Daily Digest
  • Sarvarthapedia
    • Sarvarthapedia (Core Areas)
    • Systemic-and-systematic
    • Volume One
06/04/2026
  • Law

Turkish reaction of the Decision of CJEU on banning Wearing Headscarves at Work

It is a fact that Muslims are exposed to intolerance, hate speech and even violence, are subjected to widespread stigmatization and exclusion from socio-economic life and that especially Muslim women are adversely affected by this situation.
advtanmoy 16/08/2021 2 minutes read

ยฉ Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Turkey

Home ยป Law Library Updates ยป Sarvarthapedia ยป Law ยป Turkish reaction of the Decision of CJEU on banning Wearing Headscarves at Work

No: 256,

18 July 2021

Press Release Regarding the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Wearing Headscarves at Work

The recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding two companies banning headscarves for their employees in Germany is an open violation of the right of religion.

Read Next

  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • ย Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Analysis of Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005

This decision constitutes a further example of the efforts to institutionalise and legalise hate and intolerance against Muslims in Europe.

It is a fact that Muslims are exposed to intolerance, hate speech and even violence, are subjected to widespread stigmatization and exclusion from socio-economic life and that especially Muslim women are adversely affected by this situation. This undeniably dangerous trend which indicates that lessons have not been learned from the bitter experiences of the past is also highlighted in the reports of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

And yet, at a time when hatred against Islam, racism and the poison of hate that take Europe hostage, are on the rise, the CJEU’s decision not only ignores freedom of religion, but also provides a basis and legal cover for discrimination. We condemn this decision which is legally and conscientiously wrong and dangerous in terms of hate against Islam it will fuel.

SOURCE: MIN OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS , REP OF TURKEY

Read Next

  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • ย Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Analysis of Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005


Note: The court ruled

Court of Justice of the European Union
PRESS RELEASE No 128/21
Luxembourg, 15 July 2021
Judgment in Joined Cases C-804/18 and C-341/19
WABE and MH Mรผller Handel

“A prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employerโ€™s need to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes”

Read Next

  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • ย Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Analysis of Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005

“It points out, in that regard, that such a limited prohibition is liable to have a greater effect on people with religious, philosophical or non-denominational beliefs which require the wearing of a large-sized sign, such as a head covering. Thus, where the criterion of wearing conspicuous, largesized signs of the aforementioned beliefs is inextricably linked to one or more specific religions or beliefs, the prohibition on wearing those signs based on that criterion will mean that some workers will be treated less favourably than others on the basis of their religion or belief, which would amount to direct discrimination, which cannot be justified”.


Tags: Court of Justice of the European Union TURKEY

Post navigation

Previous: Foreign Secretaryโ€™s Remarks at the Launch of Observer Research Foundationโ€™s โ€œForeign Policy Survey 2021โ€
Next: Mohammad Ashraf Ghani-Last President of Afghanistan
Communism
Sarvarthapedia

Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848: History, Context, and Core Concepts

Arrest
Sarvarthapedia

Latin Maxims in Criminal Law: Meaning, Usage, and Courtroom Application

Abolition of Slave Trade Act 1807: Facts, Enforcement, and Historical Context

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

United States of America: History, Government, Economy, and Global Power

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

Origin of Central Banking in India: From Hastings to RBI and the History of Preparatory Years (1773โ€“1934)

Howrah District Environment Plan: Waste Management, Water Quality & Wetland Conservation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections (1-358), Punishments, and Legal Framework

Bengali Food Culture: History, Traditions, and Class Influences

  • Sarvarthapedia

  • Delhi Law Digest

  • Howrah Law Journal

  • Amit Aryaย vs Kamlesh Kumari:ย Doctrine of merger
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)
  • Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184)
  • Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA): Indian Rules for Evidence
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest
  • U.S. Supreme Court Orders
  • U.k. Supreme Court Orders
United Kingdom, UK

Abolition of Slave Trade Act 1807: Facts, Enforcement, and Historical Context

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

British Slavery and the Church of England: History, Theology, and the Codrington Estates

USA, America

United States of America: History, Government, Economy, and Global Power

Biblical Basis for Slavery, english slave trade

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

2026 ยฉ Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • About
  • Global Index
  • Judicial Examinations
  • Indian Statutes
  • Glossary
  • Legal Eagle
  • Subject Guide
  • Journal
  • SCCN
  • Constitutions
  • Legal Brief (SC)
  • MCQs (Indian Laws)
  • Sarvarthapedia (Articles)
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs
  • Library Updates