Austria’s New Headscarf Ban Before the Constitutional Court

On 1 September 2026, a new statutory ban on Islamic headscarves in Austrian schools entered into force. Female pupils under the age of 14 are prohibited from wearing a headscarf at school that “covers the head according to Islamic traditions”. The law provides for a multi-stage procedure involving the pupil, her parents or legal guardians, the school administration and the school authorities, and may ultimately result in administrative penalties.

The new legislation raises fundamental questions of constitutional law. In 2020, the Austrian Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof, VfGH) had already struck down an earlier statutory ban on Islamic headscarves in Austrian schools.

On 7 September 2026, we filed a new individual application with the Austrian Constitutional Court on behalf of the pupils we represent, seeking the repeal of the new headscarf ban.

The Constitutional Court’s 2020 ruling

In its decision of 11 December 2020 (G 4/2020), the Austrian Constitutional Court repealed the previous headscarf ban. That provision, too, specifically targeted the Islamic headscarf. One of the central constitutional concerns was that the legislation singled out a particular form of religiously motivated clothing while not applying in the same way to comparable religious clothing requirements of other faiths.

The decision therefore concerned a fundamental principle of Austrian constitutional law governing the relationship between the state and religion: the state must maintain neutrality towards different religions and beliefs and may not disadvantage a particular religious community without sufficient objective justification.

What does the new headscarf ban provide?

The Austrian legislature has now made a renewed attempt to introduce such a ban. Section 43a of the Austrian School Education Act (Schulunterrichtsgesetz) prohibits female pupils under the age of 14 from wearing a headscarf “which covers the head according to Islamic traditions”.

The legislation refers, among other things, to the welfare and self-determination of children, gender equality and the visibility of girls as objectives of the measure.

In the event of a first violation, the law initially provides for a meeting with the pupil and her parents or legal guardians. Further violations may result in the involvement of the school authorities and, ultimately, administrative penalties for parents or legal guardians.

The new provision therefore differs in certain respects from the legislation reviewed by the Constitutional Court in 2020. In my view, however, the fundamental constitutional question remains.

Can the legislature specifically prohibit the Islamic headscarf?

Protecting children and promoting their ability to make autonomous decisions are undoubtedly legitimate objectives. It does not follow, however, that every restriction adopted in pursuit of those objectives is constitutionally permissible.

The new legislation does not generally prohibit religious symbols or religiously motivated clothing. Instead, it expressly targets the headscarf worn according to Islamic traditions. Other forms of religious headwear are not subject to the same prohibition.

It is precisely this selective distinction based on a particular religion that once again raises questions under the constitutional principle of equality and the requirement of state neutrality in religious matters. This unequal treatment is also one of the central issues raised in our new application to the Constitutional Court.

Unlike France, Austria does not follow a strictly secular or laïc constitutional model. The relationship between the state and religion is instead shaped by freedom of religion, equal treatment and the principle of state neutrality.

Equal treatment and freedom of religion also apply at school

The wearing of religiously motivated clothing may fall within the scope of the constitutional protection of freedom of religion and conscience. This protection also extends to school pupils.

In the case of minors, the right of parents or legal guardians to provide a religious upbringing must also be taken into account. According to the case law of the Austrian Constitutional Court, this parental right is encompassed by the fundamental right to freedom of religion and conscience.

Fundamental rights are, of course, not absolute. The legislature may impose restrictions under certain conditions. The relevant question is therefore not merely whether the legislation pursues legitimate objectives. It must also be examined whether the specific measure is objectively justified and proportionate, and whether it discriminates against one religious community in comparison with others.

New application to the Austrian Constitutional Court

An individual application filed before the new provisions entered into force did not result in a substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the ban. The applicants had argued that they were already directly affected before 1 September 2026. The question whether they were already currently affected was therefore decisive for the admissibility of that earlier application. The Constitutional Court did not at that stage decide the merits of the constitutional challenge.

Now that the headscarf ban has entered into force, the constitutional issue arises directly.

On 7 September 2026, we filed a new individual application with the Austrian Constitutional Court on behalf of the pupils we represent and requested that the headscarf ban be repealed.

The Constitutional Court will now have the opportunity to examine the constitutionality of the new legislation on its merits. In particular, it will have to consider whether the amendments made by the legislature are sufficient to address the constitutional concerns that already played a central role in the proceedings concerning the previous headscarf ban.

The headscarf ban in the current issue of FALTER

The current issue of FALTER, an Austrian weekly newspaper, also examines the new headscarf ban in detail and presents different perspectives on the debate. I was invited to provide a constitutional-law perspective for the article by Jürgen Klatzer, Lukas Matzinger and Matthias Winterer.

The article in FALTER is available online in German. With the kind permission of FALTER, the complete German-language article is also available as a PDF.

Source: FALTER, issue 36/2026, 2 September 2026.

Author: Dr Georg Rihs, Attorney at Law