Headscarf Ban before the Austrian Constitutional Court: Why the Applications Were Rejected

Few recent Austrian statutes have attracted as much public attention as the new headscarf ban for schoolgirls under the age of 14.
Supporters regard the law as a measure to protect children and promote integration. Critics argue that it interferes with freedom of religion and disproportionately affects Muslim girls.
Dr Georg Rihs represented several applicants in the constitutional review proceedings before the Austrian Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof – VfGH).
In its decision of 25 June 2026 (G 76/2026, G 87–88/2026), the Constitutional Court rejected the applications on procedural grounds. Consequently, the Court did not examine whether the headscarf ban itself complies with the Austrian Constitution.
This article explains the procedural background, the Court’s reasoning and the significance of the decision.

What does the new law provide?

The new legislation prohibits schoolgirls under the age of 14 from wearing a headscarf at Austrian schools.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the legislature intends to protect young girls from social or family pressure and to promote integration within the school system.
Critics, however, argue that the law specifically targets one form of religious dress and therefore raises important constitutional questions concerning freedom of religion and equal treatment.
Because of these constitutional concerns, several applications for judicial review were filed shortly after the legislation had been adopted.

Why is this case important?

The proceedings concern far more than the individual applicants.
They raise fundamental constitutional questions concerning

freedom of religion,
equality before the law,
proportionality,
parental rights, and
the limits of legislative discretion.

Although the Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the legislation itself, its procedural decision is of considerable legal importance. It clarifies under which circumstances legislation may be challenged before it enters into force and when a substantive constitutional review is possible.

Why is the Austrian Constitutional Court involved?

The Austrian Constitutional Court does not decide whether legislation is politically desirable or socially appropriate.
Its role is to determine whether legislation complies with the Austrian Constitution. In doing so, the Court does not replace the legislature but ensures that constitutional limits are respected.
This constitutional review function is particularly important in cases involving fundamental rights and politically sensitive legislation.

Which constitutional issues were raised?

The applications challenged the new headscarf ban on several constitutional grounds. Since the Constitutional Court rejected the applications on procedural grounds, it did not examine these constitutional questions.
The legislation was scheduled to enter into force on 1 September 2026, while the Ministry of Education had already issued guidance for schools, parents and pupils regarding the forthcoming legal framework.
One of the central procedural questions was therefore whether legislation can be challenged before it has entered into force.

Among the constitutional issues raised were:

Does the legislation interfere with freedom of religion?
Is the differential treatment objectively justified?
Does the legislation pursue a legitimate aim?
Are the measures proportionate?
Has the legislature properly balanced the interests of children, parents and the State?

The Constitutional Court did not address these issues in the present proceedings. They remain open and may become the subject of future constitutional review.

Why did the Constitutional Court reject the applications?

Before examining the constitutionality of legislation, the Austrian Constitutional Court must first determine whether the procedural requirements for judicial review have been satisfied.
Only if those requirements are met will the Court proceed to consider the constitutional merits of the case.
The Court rejected the applications filed on behalf of the applicants represented by RIHS Attorneys at Law, as well as those submitted by other applicants.
It held that the applicants were not yet directly affected, because the headscarf ban would enter into force only on 1 September 2026. Until then, schoolgirls could continue wearing a headscarf without facing legal consequences, and parents were not yet subject to any statutory obligations arising from the legislation.
According to the Court, the applicants were therefore not currently required to incur significant financial expense or undertake administrative, technical or organisational measures. As a result, they were not yet sufficiently affected to satisfy the admissibility requirements for constitutional review.

Constitutional Court Decision of 25 June 2026 (G 76/2026, G 87–88/2026)

This article provides an English-language overview of the Constitutional Court’s decision. The official German-language version is available below.

Decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court (German original)

The Constitutional Court did not discuss the applicants’ argument that the legislature had effectively disregarded its previous judgment of 11 December 2020 (G 4/2020), in which an earlier version of the headscarf ban had been declared unconstitutional. Dr Georg Rihs also represented the applicants in those proceedings.

The Constitutional Court’s previous judgment of 11 December 2020 is available both in the original German version and as an official English translation published by the Constitutional Court.

Conclusion

The proceedings concerning the new headscarf ban are among the most significant constitutional cases currently pending in Austria.
For the families concerned, the proceedings involve more than an abstract legal issue. They concern the practical consequences of new legislation affecting children’s education and the exercise of fundamental rights.
RIHS Attorneys at Law represented several applicants in the constitutional review proceedings before the Austrian Constitutional Court. By its decision of 25 June 2026 (G 76/2026, G 87–88/2026), the Court rejected the applications because the legislation had not yet entered into force at the time they were filed. Accordingly, the Court did not decide whether the headscarf ban itself is constitutional.
Since the legislation will enter into force on 1 September 2026, the procedural obstacle identified by the Court no longer exists. It is therefore expected that further constitutional review proceedings will be initiated, enabling the Constitutional Court to address the substantive constitutional questions in the future.

Dr Georg Rihs has now represented applicants in both constitutional review proceedings concerning the Austrian headscarf ban.
The current decision of 25 June 2026 (G 76/2026, G 87–88/2026) is available in the German original.
The Constitutional Court’s earlier judgment of 11 December 2020 (G 4/2020) is available both as the official English translation published by the Constitutional Court and in the German original.
The official English translation reflects the significance of this landmark judgment within Austrian constitutional law.
We will continue to report on further developments as additional constitutional proceedings unfold.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the Austrian Constitutional Court declared the new headscarf ban unconstitutional?
No. The Constitutional Court rejected the applications on procedural grounds and did not examine the constitutionality of the legislation itself.

Why were the applications rejected?
The Court held that the applicants were not yet directly affected because the legislation had not yet entered into force.

Can the legislation be challenged again?
Yes. Once the statutory requirements are met, new constitutional review proceedings may be initiated.

Where can I read the Constitutional Court’s decision?
The official decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court (available in German) is available on this page.

Has the Constitutional Court ruled on a similar issue before?
Yes. In its judgment of 11 December 2020 (G 4/2020), the Constitutional Court declared an earlier version of the headscarf ban unconstitutional.

About the Author

Dr Georg Rihs is an attorney-at-law based in Vienna, Austria. He regularly represents individuals, companies and public institutions in proceedings before the Austrian Constitutional Court.
His practice focuses on constitutional law, administrative law and public commercial law, with particular expertise in constitutional litigation and complex public law disputes.