On November 26, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (Court) ruled (judgment only available in French) that the non-renewal of a public employee’s contract, after she refused to remove her veil, was not a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention). According to the press release, Christiane Ebrahimian worked as a social worker in the psychiatric department of a hospital, which had declined the renewal of her contract after receiving complaints from patients about her wearing of the Muslim veil. When Ebrahimian refused to stop wearing the veil, the hospital sent her a letter “to the effect that while the freedom of conscience of public officials was guaranteed, the principle of the secular character of the State prevented them from enjoying the right to manifest their religious beliefs while discharging their functions; accordingly, wearing a visible symbol of religious affiliation constituted a breach of a public official’s duties.” The Court found that the hospital’s decision had not violated Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention, noting that the interference with her rights was prescribed byArticle 1 of the French Constitution and that previous decisions in the French courts had reaffirmed the principles of secularism and neutrality in public institutions. The Court further noted that the interference had “pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others.” Regarding the necessity of the measure, the Court found the measure could be justified by the state’s interest “to guarantee equality of treatment of patients.” Turning to the issue of proportionality, the Court “reiterated that while public officials enjoyed total freedom of conscience, they were prohibited from manifesting their religious beliefs in discharging their functions. Such a restriction derived from the principle of the secular nature of the State, and that of the neutrality of public services, principles in respect of which the Court had already approved a strict implementation where a founding principle of the State was involved.”