Ingrid Schweikert | Tel Aviv University (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Ingrid Schweikert
First this essay gives an overview of the German Federal Administrative Court decision (Bundesve... more First this essay gives an overview of the German Federal Administrative Court decision (Bundesverwaltungsgerichtsurteil) dated of 11. 9. 2013 – file reference 6 C 25/12 / NVwZ (Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht) 2014, 81.
The plaintiff, a Muslim girl (A), was 11 years old when she visited a German high school in the state of Hessen in the school year 2011/2012 where the swimming class was organized coeducationally.
A did not want to participate in the coeducational swimming class because of religious reasons. Therefore, the parents of the girl requested an exemption from the school, which was denied. Later appeals in Hessen were also rejected1.
The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) confirmed the decisions of the former instances, arguing that there was no special reason for an exemption from the coeducational swimming class because for the plaintiff it was reasonable to take part with a so-called “Burkini”. The appearance of boys wearing only tight and short trousers was appropriate, too
In a second step it presents the decision in details and illustrates the different reactions to the decision from different backgrounds. Finally in its largest part it sums up the arguments why the author comes to the conclusion that the decision is wrong.
Abstract This paper covers religious freedom in the European Union (EU) and its member states fr... more Abstract
This paper covers religious freedom in the European Union (EU) and its member states from a legal perspective.
“United in diversity” is the official motto of the EU and also characterizes the situation of religious freedom within the EU and its member states. Due to its religious plurality and diverse designs of church-and-state regimes in its member states there is no consent about scope and content of religious freedom in Europe.
As a consequence, European and International Law is only partly applicable and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have limited impact on religious individuals and organizations.
For instance the ECHR grants its member states a wide “margin of appreciation” to define religious freedom, which leads to different national court rulings. The goal of this research is to show that there are crucial differences between EU member states. Therefore, to determine religious freedom within the EU, it is a decisive factor in which states individuals and organizations reside in.
For this purpose the paper presents different church-state regimes, compares cases of the ECHR with national court rulings and provides descriptive examples like wearing the kippah and the headscarf in public schools.
Non-European citizens and academic scholars from other fields like humanities are often not aware of that rather complex issue and this paper wants to shed some light. Finally, the paper reflects on some ideas for a future model of European Religious Law.
First this essay gives an overview of the German Federal Administrative Court decision (Bundesve... more First this essay gives an overview of the German Federal Administrative Court decision (Bundesverwaltungsgerichtsurteil) dated of 11. 9. 2013 – file reference 6 C 25/12 / NVwZ (Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht) 2014, 81.
The plaintiff, a Muslim girl (A), was 11 years old when she visited a German high school in the state of Hessen in the school year 2011/2012 where the swimming class was organized coeducationally.
A did not want to participate in the coeducational swimming class because of religious reasons. Therefore, the parents of the girl requested an exemption from the school, which was denied. Later appeals in Hessen were also rejected1.
The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) confirmed the decisions of the former instances, arguing that there was no special reason for an exemption from the coeducational swimming class because for the plaintiff it was reasonable to take part with a so-called “Burkini”. The appearance of boys wearing only tight and short trousers was appropriate, too
In a second step it presents the decision in details and illustrates the different reactions to the decision from different backgrounds. Finally in its largest part it sums up the arguments why the author comes to the conclusion that the decision is wrong.
Abstract This paper covers religious freedom in the European Union (EU) and its member states fr... more Abstract
This paper covers religious freedom in the European Union (EU) and its member states from a legal perspective.
“United in diversity” is the official motto of the EU and also characterizes the situation of religious freedom within the EU and its member states. Due to its religious plurality and diverse designs of church-and-state regimes in its member states there is no consent about scope and content of religious freedom in Europe.
As a consequence, European and International Law is only partly applicable and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have limited impact on religious individuals and organizations.
For instance the ECHR grants its member states a wide “margin of appreciation” to define religious freedom, which leads to different national court rulings. The goal of this research is to show that there are crucial differences between EU member states. Therefore, to determine religious freedom within the EU, it is a decisive factor in which states individuals and organizations reside in.
For this purpose the paper presents different church-state regimes, compares cases of the ECHR with national court rulings and provides descriptive examples like wearing the kippah and the headscarf in public schools.
Non-European citizens and academic scholars from other fields like humanities are often not aware of that rather complex issue and this paper wants to shed some light. Finally, the paper reflects on some ideas for a future model of European Religious Law.