Sarah wishes to undertake professional training provided by GRETA. Her application was accepted, but when she arrives at reception, she is approached by the director who informs her that she cannot join the training while wearing a headscarf. The director cites the internal regulations which state: ‘In application of the principle of secularism, the wearing of any ostentatious sign of religious affiliation is strictly forbidden, regardless of the training location’.

GRETA is a group of public educational institutions that depends on the public administrative service of the National Education for all its activities and administrative, financial, and accounting management (Circular No. 2014-009 of 4-2-2014 and Education Code in its articles L423-1 and D. 423-1 to D. 423-12).

What does the law say?

It is important to distinguish between two situations:

• The GRETA is located outside the premises of a public high school.
• The GRETA where courses are taught in a building within the premises of a public high school:

• In cases where some training takes place in public high school premises, it is necessary to consider Article L. 141-5-1 of the Education Code, resulting from Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004, which states: ‘In public schools, colleges, and high schools, the wearing of signs or attire by which students conspicuously display religious affiliation is prohibited‘. This article does not apply to adults in the context of professional training, with the exception of BTS students and preparatory classes:

‘In high schools, the law applies to all students, including those enrolled in post-baccalaureate programs (preparatory classes for grandes écoles, higher technician sections)‘ (Article 2-2 of the Circular of May 18, 2004 on the implementation of Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004).

• Administrative case law has considered in this regard that trainees in continuing education provided by groups of institutions (GRETA) cannot be prohibited, based on the law of March 15, 2004, from wearing signs or attire displaying religious affiliation (TA Paris November 5, 2010, No. 0905232; TA Caen April 5, 2013, No. 1200934).

They are users of the public service and have the right to respect for religious freedom. According to the HALDE (which has become the Defender of Rights), which has had the opportunity to rule on this issue several times, the principled refusal, based solely on the wearing of a headscarf, of access to professional training taking place in a public high school constitutes religious discrimination (HALDE deliberations No. 2009-403 of December 14, 2009, and No. 2011-36 of March 21, 2011).

• However, two court decisions have allowed the prohibition of a GRETA trainee from wearing a headscarf in a public educational institution based on the coexistence of students and trainees.

1. The complainant had appealed to the Administrative Court of Melun, which in a judgment of November 19, 2013, recognized that while the law of March 15, 2004, does not apply in her case, the proper functioning of the institution was sufficient to justify the restriction concerning her.
2. This judgment was confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal (12/10/2015, 14PA00582) and the Council of State (May 2, 2016, No. 395270), which consider that the joint presence, in the same space, of apprentices and students under school status, is sufficient to justify the prohibition of wearing a religious sign for the GRETA apprentice.

These two decisions have been challenged by the UN Human Rights Committee, in its decision dated March 14, 2022 (CCPR/C/134/D/2921/2016) which considers that by prohibiting a woman from wearing a headscarf during continuing education for adults organized in a high school, France has violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966:

• ‘The refusal to allow the author to participate in her training while wearing her headscarf constitutes intersectional discrimination based on gender and religion, in violation of Article 26 of the Covenant‘.
• ‘The State party is also obligated to take all necessary measures to prevent similar violations in the future‘.

What should I do?

If you are denied access to vocational training due to wearing a religious symbol:

• Consult the internal regulations of the training center to learn about any illegal provisions, knowing that you are not considered as students in the sense of Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004.
• If no provision in the regulations mentions a ban on wearing religious symbols, this is discrimination that should be reported.
• The internal regulations of a training center that would prohibit the wearing of religious symbols is discriminatory and should be reported as such in order to be modified by the administration.
• If the prohibition is not related to specific circumstances linked to compliance with hygiene, safety, or public order rules, demand a written and reasoned notification of the refusal you are facing.
• Present to the management of the training center the deliberations of the HALDE or the Defender of Rights, which have had the opportunity to rule on similar cases, and the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee.
• In case of persistent refusal from the management of the training center, file an appeal with them,
• Refer the matter to the Defender of Rights.
• Contact Equitas who will provide you with legal assistance and support you in your various steps.

APPLICABLE REFERENCES:

Articles, laws, circulars, directives: Article L. 141-5-1 of the Education Code resulting from Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004; Ministry of Education circular No. 2004-084 of May 18, 2004; Law No. 2008-496 of May 27, 2008 on various provisions for adaptation to Community law in the field of anti-discrimination (Art. 2-2); Articles 225-1 and 225-2 of the Penal Code; Council Directive 2000/78/EC of November 27, 2000.

Conventions: Art.10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789; Art. 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Articles 18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.

Case law: CE 27 November 1996, No. 170209; TA Paris 5 November 2010, No. 0905232; TA Caen 5 April 2013, No. 1200934.

Decisions: HALDE Deliberations No. 2009-403 of 14 December 09 and No. 2011-36 of 21 March 2011; UN Human Rights Committee, 14 March 2022, CCPR/C/134/D/2921/2016.