Given the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) placid attitude towards state limitations on individual religious symbols, its recent judgment in Hamidovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, holding that the respondent state exceeded the margin of appreciation once a witness, a member of a fundamentalist Islamic group, was imprisoned for contempt of court after refusing to remove his headgear in the courtroom, appears exceptional. The exceptional nature of this judgment lies not only in the fact that the ECtHR held that an otherwise wide margin of appreciation granted to Council of Europe (CoE) states in matters involving state-religion issues was overstepped, but also in the fact that it is one of rare cases where the ECtHR more directly addressed the right of private individuals to wear religious symbols in the courtroom. Nevertheless, the Hamidovic judgment is narrowly confined, meticulously distinguished from earlier similar cases, and understandably distinguished from other potential cases on religious symbols, i.e., those involving the facial veil in the courtroom. Further, the majority opinion in Hamidovic did not clarify whether absence of clear regulations on a particular issue across CoE states is an indicator of the absence or presence of European consensus in matters related to religion. For two reasons, however, the Hamidovic judgment may just act as a weak signal of change. First, it fits the ECtHR’s tactics of using cases involving members of controversial religious groups and states with weak human rights records as experimental grounds for adjustment of its jurisprudence and a means to improve its own image. Second, the ECtHR is now carefully signaling its willingness to consider a disparate impact of state limitations on different religions and increase its evidentiary requirements on the adverse impact of religious symbols as a justification for limitations. The ECtHR’s recent judgment in Lachiri v. Belgium, disagreeing that a Belgian court can prohibit a party wearing a headscarf from attending a hearing, gives limited evidence for these two claims.

中文翻译：

---

一个（非）特例：斯特拉斯堡法院对法庭上的宗教标志保留点头

鉴于欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 对国家对个别宗教象征的限制持平和态度，其最近在哈米多维奇诉波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那案中的判决认为，一旦作为证人、原教旨主义者的成员，被告国家就超出了判断范围。在法庭上拒绝摘下头饰后因藐视法庭而被监禁的伊斯兰组织显得很特别。该判决的特殊性不仅在于，欧洲人权法院认为，在涉及国家宗教问题的事项上给予欧洲委员会 (CoE) 国家的宽泛赞赏范围被超越，而且还在于它是欧洲人权法院更直接地处理私人在法庭上佩戴宗教标志的权利的罕见案例之一。尽管如此，哈米多维奇的判决是狭隘的，与早期的类似案件有细微的区别，并且与其他有关宗教象征的潜在案件，即法庭上涉及面纱的案件不同，这是可以理解的。此外，哈米多维奇的多数意见没有澄清，在 CoE 各州之间缺乏针对特定问题的明确规定是否表明欧洲在宗教相关问题上缺乏或存在共识。然而，出于两个原因，哈米多维奇的判断可能只是一个微弱的变化信号。首先，它符合欧洲人权法院将涉及有争议的宗教团体成员和人权记录薄弱的国家的案件作为调整其判例的实验依据和改善自身形象的手段的策略。第二，欧洲人权法院现在正在谨慎地表示愿意考虑国家限制对不同宗教的不同影响，并增加对宗教符号不利影响的证据要求，作为限制的理由。欧洲人权法院最近在 Lachiri 诉比利时案中的判决不同意比利时法院可以禁止戴头巾的一方参加听证会，为这两项索赔提供了有限的证据。