Akder Reports

I. INTRODUCTION

This work aims to determine how the attempt of banning the religious symbols at the educational institutions of the European Union Country Bulgaria will affect its position on the democratic rights and freedoms. The bill envisaging the ban on religious symbols at all the educational institutions will disrupt the right to equal educational opportunity on one hand and also violate the most basic principles of the international human rights law against discrimination on the other hand.

In this work some applications concerning the women wearing headscarf in the major European countries such as England, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Greece and Sweden have been given place. Since the law will affect the usage of the right to education, the quality of education as a fundamental human right has been given place. Immediately after it has been clarified under which circumstances a fundamental human right may be limited. It has been determined that the United Nations conventions and organs evaluate the usage of headscarf within the freedom of religion. It has been included that the United Nations Human Rights Committee adjudicates the headscarf ban at universities as violation of human rights. How the freedom of religion and conscience is defined generally in the European Union countries has been explained. In the conclusion and opinions chapter it has been ascertained that a probable ban may result in a discrimination which damages the community peace and gives rise to endless debates as in the case of model of Turkey implementing the ban actually.

II. THE NATURE OF RIGHT TO EDUCATION AS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PLACE OF RIGHT TO EDUCATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS

Even if it is expressed in objective words, the ban of visible religious symbols at the educational institutions will essentially affect the muslim women wearing headscarf. The headscarf ban at the educational institutions including higher education by claiming to be a religious symbol will deprive the students who choose to wear headscarf of education.

Education is the most important means of social balance which shows that everybody having ability and gaining right can advance. It has an autonomy which provides social integration as by increasing social mobility and makes it easy for the poor change their class. In the countries where the functions of education do not work in this way, social peace and social order deteriorate seriously. The development of society depends on giving sufficient importance and providing necessary resources to education. At this point, due to its importance, education has been given to state as a task. The state has not only undertaken the education and training of its citizens but at the same time it has been charged to ensure equal opportunity among them and fulfill its task in full justice and equality.

International law has also acknowledged long ago the indispensable position of right to education in the utilization of academic freedom. Right to education takes part in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), under Article 26/1. As per this article “Everyone has the right to education”.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 13 is as follows: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education.’’ Article 13 describes in detail the right to education, the purpose and scope of education and the critical role teachers and teachers associations play on the creation and implementation of national education policies.

The organ which is officially responsible for construction of the contents of rights in the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. In order to point to the importance of right to education the Committee says that "Education is both a human right in itself and an indispensable means of realizing other human rights”

Supplementary protocol to the ECHR article 2 paragraph 4 declares that ‘One of the aims to be pursued by the Council of Europe is the protection and further realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” European Union states emphasize that one of the main objectives of this Union is the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In fact, the point which makes a state strong is the importance it gives to human rights and freedoms.
States must ensure that there is not any discrimination in the actualisation of all rights described in the covenant. International covenants emphasize that to make discrimination on the grounds of ‘’religion or political opinions and other kinds of opinions ‘’ is unacceptable. This means that the right of a student rising to a higher education level may just be based on the student’s ability, not to religious or political tendencies.

Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Protocol 12, article 1 envisages “a general prohibition of discrimination”

Article is as follows:
“The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

As stated in annotations on the provisions of the Protocol “the first paragraph of the initial part refers to the principle of equality before the law and anticipation of equal protection of law. It is said that “this is a fundamental and established principle; and one of the essential elements of the protection of human rights recognized in the constitutions of the member states and international human rights law.”

As a matter of fact Convention against Discrimination in Education which was signed and brought into force within the scope of UNESCO adjudicates under Article 1: “For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘discrimination’ includes any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education and in particular:

- Of depriving any person or group of persons of access to education of any type or at any level;
-Of limiting any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard;
-Subject to the provisions of article 2 of this Convention, of establishing or maintaining separate educational systems or institutions for persons or groups of persons; or
-Of inflicting conditions on any person or group of persons which are incompatible with the dignity of man.”

Even; according to the article 2 of the Convention, separate educational systems or institutions may be established for religious or linguistic reasons if the conditions require. This situation is not deemed to constitute any discrimination. European Union standard is not different. European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10 states:
“ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Right to education in the European Convention on Human Rights has been organized in Article 2 of the Supplementary Protocol 1. The article text titled “right to education” is as follows:
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.”

The purpose of these provisions is to provide the state not to give dogmatic information contrary to the religious and philosophical beliefs of parents and prevent the totalitarian regimes affect and educate the children in a systematic way by indoctrinating their ideology in them in the process of education and training. In the ECHR judgments it has been indicated that education must not include dogmatic information and State "must take care that information or knowledge included in this curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner.

The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions."

ECHR draws attention to the importance of education in a democratic social structure and declares “The second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2) aims in short at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education which possibility is essential for the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the Convention. In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized.” In the ECHR judgments it is explained that the state should not violate the right to education at the expense of no one. This means that in achieving the educational opportunities offered by law and using these opportunities, the state must not interfere with these rights.

At this point in accordance with the international law “the right of everyone to education and its not being barred by any cause, to regard beliefs and thoughts of individuals and families in education; and to educate children in that way, to give particular importance to the preferences of society and families in education regulations and not to put pressure on religious education” are among the fundamental principles of right to education.

As “The Committee of Ministers and Explanatory Memorandum” states , right of education is a human right that must be enjoyed by women and men in an equal position. It envisages access to education on one hand and equal opportunity on the other hand with regard to educational choices and educational achievements. 8 Awareness of these facts has progressively grown and legal provision, guidelines and plans of action have been put forward. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Article 26 and 27) and the worldwide International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13 and 15) and the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) and Revised European Social Charter (Article 10, 17 and 20) all enshrine the right to education, training and personal development for all. As early as 1979, the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, particularly in Article 10, drew a rather complete picture of state obligations to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sex and to ensure equality of rights between women and men in the field of education, including the same conditions for career and vocational guidance, the same curricula and examinations, the elimination of stereotyped concepts of women’s roles, the same level of access to continue education, the same opportunities to participate in sports and physical education, etc.

Wearing headscarf means to perform the necessities of your very own religion, fulfill the requirements of it and express it and these are the most basic rights of an individual. This has also been guaranteed by the international covenants. Bulgaria’s ban on headscarf on grounds that it is a religious symbol will restrict the right to education which is protected by international covenants which the Bulgaria entered into obligation to obey by signing them.

III. FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS
1) Freedom of religion and conscience in the United Nation covenants

The law regarding prohibition of religious symbols will be arbitrarily given as a reason to the headscarfed women’s usage of their rights. However the person does not use the headscarf as a religious symbol in order to show her religion or her being muslim. She wears headscarf as a command of her religion all through her life. So, for a woman who prefers to cover her head it has such an importance that is very difficult to give up.

The law will violate the freedom of religion and conscience of the women to be torn between two options either to uncover their head in front of school or to be sent home being deprived of education.

The most important indicator of presence of the freedom of religion and conscience is to be able to fulfill the needs of your belief. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 includes the following provision:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

‘United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief’ dated 25 November 1981, under Article 2 states “No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression ‘intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief’ means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief…”

Similarly, the United Nations Human Rights Committee interprets the freedom to express religious belief in a manner that may include wearing of distinctive clothing and head coverings. Human Rights Committee considers restriction of the right to education due to clothing and interventions intended to express religious belief to be unlawful.

Article 18 is as follows:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

The ICCPR and ECHR define freedom of thought and religion as absolute rights, so they are non-derogable even under states of emergency. United Nations Human Rights Committee while interpreting this provision points out that one’s freedom to manifest religion or belief – as it was guaranteed by ICCPR – encompasses a broad range of acts including to wear distinctive clothing.

United Nations Humans Right Committee, General Comment adopted on 20 July 1993 intended to explain article 18 very openly includes that wearing of distinctive religious clothing is an aspect of religious life which should be protected. Committee states that “the observance and practice of a religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also the wearing of distinctive clothing and head coverings.”

Article 18, paragraph 3 states that “restrictions cannot be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner “onto this principle. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines freedom of thought and religion as absolute rights, so they are non-derogable even under states of emergency. In case of an exceptional emergency situation, measures being inconsistent with article 18 are not taken.

The same principles take part in ICCPR article 26 which prohibits to be brought discriminatory laws and explains these rules to be able to apply “in any field organized and protected by public authorities.” 17

For the purpose of observing the implementation of ICCPR in the countries parties to this covenant Human Rights Committee was established. Committee makes decisions concerning that headscarf ban in higher education institutions has violated the Covenant.

In a decision of Human Rights Committee taken against Uzbekistan it is stated that
The mistreated applicant claims that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion was violated; and because she did not want to give up using headscarf which she had been applying it as a necessity of her own religion she was excluded from university. “The Committee considers that the freedom of manifestation one’s religion encompasses the right of wearing clothes or attire in public which is in conformity with the individual’s faith or religion. Furthermore, it considers that to prevent a person from wearing religious clothing in public or private may constitute a violation of Article 18 (2) which bans any constraint that would impair the individual’s freedom of having or adopting a religion.”

Within this framework, UNHRC interprets the freedom to manifest religious belief in a way to be able to include wearing distinctive clothing and headscarf. Being the inspection body of United Nations International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee considers interventions intended to express religious belief illegal. Human Rights Committee should arrange the domestic laws and policies of states party to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the way to fit in with the determinants. THIS CASE REVEALS THAT HEADSCARF SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED IN BULGARIA ON GROUNDS OF BEING A RELIGIOUS SYMBOL.

After all, the freedom of religion has been secured as well in other international covenants Bulgaria ratified. The most important aspect of Helsinki Declaration of the European Security and Cooperation Agreement, signed in Helsinki in 1975 and adopted by Bulgaria,is to have been highly concentrated on human rights issues and to be signed also by the Warsaw Pact member countries.

In the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, member states of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) agreed that “the participating States would recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.” After this date the member states have confirmed these commitments by repeat it numerous times. 1989 Vienna Concluding Document includes following statements:“ In order to ensure the freedom of the individual to profess and practice religion or belief the participating States will, inter alia, take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination against individuals or communities, on the grounds of religion or belief… foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect between believers of different communities as well as between believers and non-believers.”

Paragraph 22 of the Vienna Declaration adopted in the International Conference on Human Rights dated 25.06.1993 includes those statements:
“The right to worship includes individual and social place of ceremony and worship, a method of worship which are both direct expressions and signs of faith; various manners of behaviour being the natural necessity of these, for instance, construction of temples, a particular form of worship, worship equipments, producing certain symbols and remembrance of holy days. Religious and faith performance and fulfillment includes not only practicing certain rituals but for instance fasting regularly on certain days, applying special diets (such as vegetarian diets), wearing special dresses or hats or headscarves and repeating some word and terms spoken traditionally by a community as well.

In this case, Bulgaria must act compatible with the Helsinki Declaration and the draft law which bans the use of headscarf should not be accepted.

2) An Inquiry on the Claim of Discrimination Based on 9th Article of European Convention on Human Rights and Restrictions on Conscience and Religion

That under which conditions a right may be restricted has been envisaged in the natural law and international covenants. As for Bulgaria, there is not any case available requiring the headscarf ban as a religious symbol. Decisions made on Turkey and France; and described as the most controversial decisions of ECHR in the international community do not require Bulgaria to impose such a ban in its educational institutions.

The ECHR has based its rejection on having right of discretion on such a delicate issue as headscarf in fulfilling contractual obligations of administration, that the Court’s jurisdiction in such matters is subsidiary and that “its role is not to impose uniform solutions”. The Court has exclusively avoided to make a judgment which might be exemplified all the member states on grounds of lack of consensus in Europe at this matter. However as Judge Tulkens expressed in her dissenting opinion: “the practice within Europe with regard to university students wearing the headscarf is consistent, with the exception of Turkey. Even in France, having the most strict approach on this issue, the ban regarding religious symbols has just been applying in state-owned primary and secondary educational institutions, but not in private schools or in universities. Moreover even in this country, private primary and secondary schools where students wearing headscarf can get education are available. And there is no any prohibition regarding the headscarf in universities.

In addition, ECHR has not given such a decision as “ban the headscarf permanently.” The Court has already no such authority. ECHR philosophy of human rights may be explained as “matter how few exceptions, the better.” Exceptions can be tolerated; yet never recommended or supported. Judgment of the Court which states that some alleged conditions have occurred and these justify the intervention in question in Turkey does not mean this situation will not violate ECHR on condition that the other countries ban the “headscarf.” To draw a still wider framework for freedom than set forth by the Court is in the appreciation of each country’s public opinion. Already, all European Union Countries’ discretion has been in this direction. Bulgaria should assess itself whether its own country conditions include a mandatory requirement for the restriction of religious freedom but it should provide concrete reasons for this.

As it has been expressed in the court judgment on the applications of Abdülaziz, Cabales and Balkandalı against the United Kingdom: “different treatment is discriminatory just “when not based on objective and reasonable justification”, in other words, not aim to achieve “a legitimate purpose” or if there is not “a reasonable ratio between the used vehicle and the desired goal.” And the ban on religious symbols will be a discriminatory practice violating the freedom of religion.
In the article 9 of the convention as well as having a religion or belief, fulfillment and implementation of the requirements of adopted religion are protected. Actual applications composing this part, namely freedom to manifest religion or belief partaking in the 2nd clause of paragraph 1 is not absolute and unlimited. That is subject to the restrictions stipulated in the Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights article 9, paragraph 2 includes following provisions:
“Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

At this point, the restrictions to be able to be placed on the freedom of religion by the Contracting State have to possess three absolute clauses in order to define as an intervention in the context of ECHR:
• To be stipulated by laws
• To pursue a legitimate purpose
• To be necessary for a democratic society

a) To be stipulated by laws
For a law to be able to gain acceptance in a democratic society, it must not do any harm to the essence of rights and freedoms. Each legal regulation which makes a fundamental right unavailable in specie will be contrary to the supranational law even though it is duly passed into the law by the Parliament. In a society which claims to be democratic, that a law relating to the woman's head being covered cannot be explained matching to the supranational criteria. In the same way, a provision of law which envisions uncovering the head and banning the religious symbols including headscarf equally conflicts with the supranational law.

As a matter of fact, guaranteed by the Council of Europe the principle “enjoyment of all rights ensured legally” bans any discrimination “by the public authority.” Hereby public authorities do not only take in the administrative authorities but also courts and legislative bodies. Bulgarian Parliament should not pass a legislation which will be a discrimination against the headscarfed women.

b) Has the intervention been pursuing a legitimate purpose?
Teaching cannot be related to the conditions that are irrelevant with the quality and results of teaching. It is clear that a student’s headscarf is not an essential condition connected with the quality in teaching. That a student takes off her headscarf in order that she may keep education will not have any effect on the quality of teaching.

aa) The Public Safety
The ban on headscarf at the educational institutions has no connection with the public safety whatsoever.

bb)The Public Order
Whether the women’s hair is covered or uncovered or its style and cut have no concern with the public order. Some special circumstances which may justify the state to make rules concerning religious costumes – as this type of clothing directly endangers the personal or public health or safety- may be present.

However just as such concerns do not legitimize a general ban,

There is no any threat in question in terms of headscarf. Public order is not violated abstractly.
The existence of different styles of clothing is not a disruptive situation. So, in Bulgaria there is no any determination regarding that the headscarf causes disruption in education or any visible disturbance. On the contrary, prohibitions and conflicts will violate the order. It is impossible to associate the discriminatory treatments which will be made against the headscarfed women with the Bulgarian national traditions and secularism. Moreover, the secular character of European Union Countries does not need the restriction of headscarfed students’ right to education.

cc) The Public Health
The ban on headscarf has no connection with the “Public Health” as well.

dd) The Public Morality
To impose the students an obligation on uncovering their heads has no available connection with the public decency.

ee) The Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of Others
To prevent students from wearing headscarves cannot be explained by the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Interests of Ordre Public (Public Order) do not constitute an absolute priority and interests to be obtained with the restriction of a right must be balanced against the interests of those who wish for the enjoyment of that right. In fact, it is not clear at all what other citizens obtain in return for the losses of the women whose right to higher education is taken away. Deprivation of headscarfed students from educational rights will not provide the others with more rights.

c) Intervention is not Required in a Democratic Society
Democratic society requires to live in tolerance and pluralism. There can be no democratic society without them. Concept of the democratic constitutional state makes equal treatment mandatory towards the citizens. The citizens performing their obligations and duties to the state such as taxation, military service, respect for laws and rules equally enjoy the all rights and opportunities provided by the state within the framework of principles of equality and justice. To have any belief or conscientious belief cannot be a reason for deprivation of rights and opportunities.

There must be conscience and tolerance in a democratic society and the state must maintain order. It should not eliminate the tension parties in order to remove tension. Contrary, it should enable the necessary opportunity to the parties for the freedom of worship. The judgment of ECHR, dated 14 December 1999, in the case of Şerif includes those below:
“The Court has recognised that it is possible that tension is created in situations where a religious or any other community becomes divided. However, it has considered that this is one of the unavoidable consequences of pluralism. The role of the authorities in such circumstances is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other.”

By this means, it indicates that diverseness in society which has social legitimacy should not be eliminated; on the contrary, it should be protected. As for the headscarf ban in the educational institutions will mean the termination of differences. As the International Human Rights Watch states; headscarf is not a threat against the public safety, health, order or moral values and it does not override the rights of others. It does not carry any threat within its structure inherently, it does not cause the disruption of order and it does not undermine the function of education.

As indicated in international human rights reports, the choice to adopt or not to adopt a particular manner of dress is an exercise of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Covering the head is a reflection of the freedom of religion and conscience, and one’s living according to her religious beliefs. The fact that Bulgaria is a secular country is not an obstacle to its equal treatment to the headscarfed women. On the contrary, it is a constitutional principle that there must be no discrimination between citizens. The principle of secularism requires that the state should maintain an equal distance to all world views, religious beliefs and opinions that are present in society, and that it should not support any one of such views, beliefs or opinions against any other. Secular states afford equal treatment to all citizens in an impartial manner. That a state be impartial must lead to its not making any discrimination positively or negatively on the basis of belief. As approached from the point of general principles of law, the existence of freedom of religion and conscience requires that the believers could perform the requirements of their religion and are not exposed to any discriminative treatment consequently.

The principle of secularism cannot be put forward as the reason of the restriction of right to education. To be included in different styles of religious headgears does not mean public officials to approve of any religious opinion. It does not require any expenditure of public resources. Secular states intervene in their citizens impartially. Since the characteristic of state is to be neutral, it cannot make any positive or negative discrimination in accordance with belief. Enjoyment of civil and political rights cannot be decided on depending religious belief. States must demonstrate an equalitarian and fundamentally respectful manner towards all religious beliefs. The policies prohibiting or making obligatory the students wear clothes having visible religious symbols on them mean a state not doing its duty staying away from suppression on the matters of conscience. In fact, what the countries choosing to ban all the visible religious symbols do will be unlike the countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia which enforce the girls to cover their heads at schools.

Herein, the fact that the state forces the women to uncover their hair will not be able to reconcile with the democratic society. After all, that is actually impossible to come to a successful conclusion by using force on the will of the individual.

As stated in a desicion of the American Supreme Court: “…Attempt to protect people against harmful thoughts is neither the duty of the state nor the right ...For the constitution makers do not rely on any method on behalf of us to make a distinction between right or wrong, the guide of everyone in search of the reality is to be himself.”

That the state’s keeping equal distance towards certain religions and ideologies is the indication of its impartiality. It is suggested that the state should pay regard to the concepts of justice and freedom. According to this definition, pluralism is dominant in an impartial (neutral) state in terms of ideas and religious freedom and certain traditions of some societies are esteemed. This should be described as positive secularism. The state has been adopting an equalitarian and fundamentally respectful manner towards all religious beliefs.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been enjoining the public authorities to avoid suppression on the matter of conscience. The states should consider this obligation on making school clothing regulations. It should not be ignored that the attempt to ban is also in contradiction with the fundamental principles declared by the European Union.

IV. GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS HEADSCARFED WOMEN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES

Herein one by one evaluations have been made regarding certain European Union Countries. As seen here, no any country except France has an attitude banning the headscarf in the educational institutions. Even in France, religious symbols have been banned in the elementary schools. As there are private elementary schools delivering religious education, this ban does not take the private elementary schools and universities in.

The arguments experienced across Europe is as follows: from the point of Christians the arguments on the obligation of keeping cross in the state schools in Italy and Germany; in terms of muslims the arguments on muslim students having education in the state schools in France to wear headscarves, the muslim teachers in Germany to perform their duty wearing headscarves; the religious requests of the individuals being the member of the far east religions such as sikh and Buddhism regarding to grow beard and wear puggarees, the jewish wearing religious clothes such as kipa and yarmulke and the similar requests of the members of little-known religions.

V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE RELIGION IN EUROPEAN UNION AND HEADSCARF REGULATIONS

1) GERMANY
In Germany, the Muslim women are able to wear Islamic headscarf in public areas, universities, schools and working places. There is no ban related to headscarf in many Provinces. The German Constitutional Court made it clear that using of any rights can not be limited as a result of wearing headscarf unless there is a limitation prescribed by the law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Right after that, some Provinces enacted laws that strictly ban wearing distinctive religious dress for teachers in the state schools and for the officers on some relative positions. This situation, nationally and internationally, became a matter of criticism. In the reports of many different international countries, these bans (especially the ones targetting Muslim women) are indicated that they violate the freedom of religion and the right of employment in Germany. In some provinces of Germany there has been made some changes in the law and the ban related to the headscarved teachers in schools is abolished. Thus in Baden-Württemberg a teacher who had taught for many years wearing a headscarf won her suit at the Administrative Court in Stuttgart. In contrast to the Constitutional Court of Bavaria recently ruled that the Bavarian school act does not privilege Christian confessions in an admissible way and that the prohibition of the headscarf in Bavaria is constitutional. It seems likely that the headscarf debate in Germany will go into another round. Thusly, there are courts asserting it as ‘discrimination’ if a nurse, because she is headscarved, is being fired from a hospital belong to the Church.

The Relationship Between The State and The Religion in GERMANY
The German law does not refer to laicism or secularism. Laicism or secularism is not legal concepts in the German law. Thus, there is also no definition of such terms. The basic concept of German Law in matters of relationship between the state and the religion is that of neutrality(Neutralitat). The state must be neutral in matters of religion and philosophical creed.

Even its Article 7 of German Constitution (Basic Law) “Religious instructions shall form part of the regular curriculum in state schools, with the exception of non-denominational schools. Without prejudice to the State’s right of supervision, religious instructions shall be given in accordance with the tenets of the religious community concerned. Teachers may not be obliged against their will to give religious instructions.

The Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany called the Basic Law and promulgated on 23 May 1949, guarantees freedom of religion in its Article 4, thus on very predominant place.

Article 4 (4/I-III) of the Federal Constitution reads;

Article 4 [Freedom of faith, conscience, and creed]
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.

Article 136 Weimar Constitution reads;
1)Civil and political rights and duties shall be neither dependent upon nor restricted by the exercise of religious freedom.
2)Enjoyment of civil and political rights and eligibility for public office shall be independent of religious affiliation.

According to the Federal Constitution of Germany, neither the enjoyment of civil and political rights and eligibility for public office nor the rights acquired in the public service shall be dependent upon religious affiliation. No one may be disadvantaged by reason of adherence or no adherence to a particular religious denomination or philosophical creed. So, the discriminatory character of the ban on veiled teachers still continues as a matter of criticism in itself.

According to “The Veil Project” which is prepared for European Union, The German Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling on the headscarf has led to a paradox situation. The current state of regulations is rather problematic since both the Christian-conservative as well as the secular model of regulations are contradictory to the positive and comprehensive understanding of state neutrality: the German constitutional tradition regards the neutrality of the state as a “positive“, comprising and encouraging attitude of public institutions to the practice of religions and beliefs by the citizens, also in the public sphere. Yet the state must not be identified with a particular religion. Taking the secular model seriously it promotes a “negative“ instead of a “positive“ understanding of neutrality while the Christian-conservative model is clearly identified with particular religions. As a result both versions of the current regulations lead to an erosion of the positive and comprehensive understanding of neutrality while provoking further conflicts.

2) ENGLAND
There is no general law to regulate the wearing of headscarf or the public use of other religious symbols. Besides, there are no general legislative provisions that prohibit the wearing of the hijab, jilbab, niqab or any other forms of Islamic dress. England has no written constitution and so it is not a question of forbidding the headscarf even in primary schools. In England it was taken under rule that the policewomen can be veiled and for that reason; appropriate uniforms are manufactured for them. It was stated that they might also have a veiled lawyer. If a person not being allowed to work in a coiffeur as she is veiled, it is accepted as a discrimination against the law and requires indemnity.

Stemming from EU directives, The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 covers a range of areas within the employment context. The regulations cover direct discrimination, where an individual is treated less favorably than another because of their religion, and indirect discrimination, where an employer has a rule or policy which applies to everyone but which in practice disadvantages members of a particular religion.

3) AUSTRIA
There is no general law to regulate the wearing of headscarf or the public use of other religious symbols. In Austria, wearing the Islamic headscarf can be deemed principally admissible, though it is neither stipulated expressis verbis (explicitly) nor is there any respective case law. Such attitude is in correspondence with the concept of including neutrality as it is carried out within the school system, integrating religion and belief, without, however the state identifying with any individual denomination. So, there is no restriction to wear the headscarf in public space.

There is no restriction to wear the headscarf in public area. A decree from June 2004 (ZI 20.251/3-III/3/2004) by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture states that the headscarf is a religious clothing directive and therefore falls under protection of Article 14 (full freedom of believe and faith), Paragraph 1 of the Basic State Law as well as Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Human Rights Convention. Thus, the right to wear the headscarf has constitutional status.

Moreover, the Viennese Association of Hospitals launched a decree on wearing scarves at work (GED–104/2006/BGD, August 2006). According to the decree, wearing the headscarf has to be respected if certain principles such as the security and rights of the patients and the protection of workers are guaranteed. Regarding the question if Muslim women are allowed to wear a headscarf on photos in public documents, there is also a clear practice. The face of a person has to be clearly identifiable. Thus, the Muslim headscarf can be accepted (Parliamentary response by the Federal Minister of Inner Affairs 4104/AB XXI. GP, 3.9.2002).

Furthermore, in 2003 two Sikhs with Turbans wanted to work as bus-drivers in Vienna but were not permitted due to the obligation of bus drivers to wear caps. Finally the Viennese public transport agency allowed officially the wearing of Turbans during work.

In this context, one has to point out that the Islamic headscarf as such can not automatically be deemed to be religious symbol with an indoctrinating or missionary effect or expressing a political-fundamental attitude. No doubt, it has mainly religious relevance, but there are cultural, sociological or political reasons that also have to be taken into account. The concrete motif of a woman concerned can not be definitively identified; there a certain degree of uncertainty necessarily remains. Accordingly, the fundamental rights of the teacher principally prevail, provided that her behavior is correct and her way of teaching is not indoctrinating. Therefore, the admissibility of wearing the Islamic scarf while teaching in a public school is to be taken as a basis. In case of lasting endanger to the religious peace in a certain school, the concrete circumstances have to be taken into account. And as an ultima ratio(the final argument) a solution might be found by transferring the teacher to the another school.

The admissibility of wearing the Islamic headscarf for pupils and students is definitively clarified in a ministerial order. The Islamic headscarf is admissible on condition that the face of a person has to be clearly identifiable.

The Relationship Between The State and The Religion in AUSTRIA
The legal system of the relations between the state and religion in Austria is based on two main principles; the fundamental right to individual freedom of religious and philosophical beliefs; and the guarantee, through fundamental rights, of the corporate activities of religious communities in public. There are no such written principles as secularism in the Constitution. However, in practice it reads the freedom of faith and allows the religions to be performed, but the state not identifying with any individual denomination or religion.

In Austria there is no established state church. State and churches/religious communities are institutionally separated. The constitution does not refer to any particular religion. However, it includes comprehensive guarantees concerning of freedom of religion and conscience. The constitutional provisions in Austrian law relating to religion are contained in the Constitutional Act on the Fundamental Rights of Citizen of 21 December 1867-(StGG),which was declared a constitutional law of the Federal State by Article 149 sect.1 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Act 1920.The StGG introduced a denominationally neutral system i the ecclesiastical or religious matter respectively. The aim of this constitutional guarantee and of the following respective legislative measures was primarily equalization by emancipation of other religions and religious sects.

4) FRANCE
The French Council of State, in its rule of November 27,1989, declared that “wearing small religious symbols (including headscarf), by means that they would not explicitly incommode others, is not inconsistent with secularism and republican principals. But nonetheless, the ex-president Jacques Chirac signed the law that restricts the wearing headscarf which may lead students be absolutely abstracted from the schools.

The current regulation on headscarf wearing has been enforced by the March 15th 2004 Law on Laïcité and Conspicuous Religious Symbols in Schools. The law forbids pupils to wear any religious sign in public elementary (from 11 to 15 y.o.) and secondary schools (from 15 to 18 y.o.). The ban does not concern private schools and interned based education.

In order to enforce the law, the Minister of Education issued a circular for its services (27 May 2004), specifying practical examples of “conspicuous” symbols. The law and circular gave headmasters the power to decide whether particular attires were or not acceptable, allowing them to refer to the 2004 law. The circular states that the law does not apply to young women’s parents when coming into the school.

The new law doubtlessly made the anti-immigrants and the racists pleased. However, this matter caused debates still continuing. In France, even the representatives of the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches, in their letter sent to the President Jacques Chirac, adjudicated the restriction of headscarf in schools. The Christian Council of France stated that any law which is enacted on this issue may cause ‘discriminatory feelings’.

In principle, the law does not necessarily forbid bandannas, although many schools have banned any kind of head covering, including bandannas. Undergoing school inspector pressure, many public schools directors nevertheless included a general ban on every kind of tissue covering the head in their local school rules. The ban does not concern universities either, though three female students wearing the headscarf have recently been expelled from the universities of Toulouse, Saint-Etienne and Villetaneuse.

Besides, primary and secondary school teachers are, just like other civil servants, throughout the lessons, forbidden to make propaganda of their religious conscience and political views. By this means, France implements the radical secularism and, religion and the state are improperly separated. This improper structure provides an oppressive advantage to the representative organs of the state against the religion. In public area, the strict restriction of the freedom of religion and strict limitations on religious symbols are accepted as radical (fundamental) secularism.

Furthermore, the law 2004–228 of March 15,2004 bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public primary and secondary schools, caused troubles in three basic areas for Muslim community in France and what is more, this situation resulted in serious integration problems. As a matter of fact, the restriction also causes discrimination for headscarved women out of educational and employment life.

The Human Rights Council founded as a controlling mechanism of the United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implied in his session 39 in July 7–25,2008,which is related to France, that they are concerned about the law 2004–228 of March 15,2004 bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public primary and secondary schools. The Human Rights Council notes that the respect to the public secular culture does not require the general religious symbols to be banned.(18–26)According to the Council, France has to re-evaluate the law 2004–228 of March 15,2004 in the light of the guarantees of the Article 26 (the equality principle) and the Art.18 (the freedom of religion and conscience including the right to show a person’s own conscience in public area as in private life.

5) SWEDEN
There is no general law to regulate the wearing of headscarf or the public use of other religious symbols in Sweden. Thus, headmaster of a school, as he did not let a veiled teacher work in his school, was dismissed from his job and convicted to pay an indemnity to the teacher. The religious discrimination is one of the most wrongful acts which require indemnity. For example, not taking a women wearing burqa into his cab, cost a driver his job.

The Relationship Between The State and The Religion in SWEDEN
In Sweden, the relationship between the state and the church was radically changed by the beginning of the 21st century. Previously, the Lutheran Church of Sweden was the State Church but , from January 1,2ooo the Church is no longer a State Churh. The Constitution grants every citizen the freedom, alone or together with other, to practice his or her own religion. On the other hand, every citizen is protected from being compelled by the state to proclaim his or her own religious beliefs. The citizen is also protected from being compelled to be a member of any church or other religious organizations. It is thus of great importance for the vitality of Swedish democracy that different ideologies and religious organizations working towards maintaining, strengthening and developing the democratic constitution obtain good opportunities to manifest themselves.

6) ITALY
There are no rules or regulations regarding the wearing of veils or any other religious symbols in Italy. The Italian Interior Minister has defended the dress code of Muslim women, known as ‘hijab’,saying the Islamic law ‘protects them’. Speaking at a ceremony titled “Women and Society”, Giuliano Amato added that the practice of Hijab encourages respect towards women. In a positive sense, Italian laicité implies, first of all, a “regime of confessional and cultural pluralism”. That means that this principle supposes the existence of a plurality of value systems and the same dignity of all personal choices in the field of the freedom of religion and conscience. Laicité, therefore, entails identical protection for the specific religious freedom and for the more generic freedom of convictions. Consequently, it imposes state neutrality on them. As a result, this principle does not just refer to state-church relations but, as “supreme principle of constitutional order”, it is a synthesis of values and duties of the contemporary pluralistic and democratic state in which religion plays a full role, like each other element of civil society.

Article 19 is the basis of religious freedom as a “personal” right.

Article 19 [Freedom of Religion]
Everyone is entitled to freely profess religious beliefs in any form, individually or with others, to promote them, and to celebrate rites in public or in private, provided they are not offensive to public morality.

On the grounds of this article, religious freedom is recognized to “everyone” irrespective of citizenship. That means that reference to the principle of reciprocity can not subordinate the
enjoyment of this right by foreign citizens.

Article 7 is devoted to the relations between the state and the Catholic Church, which is unanimously considered as a classical model of “religious confession” . This article fixes two principle points:

1) the Mutual Independence and Sovereignty of both State and this Church;
2) the concordatarian way to rule their relationship.

According to the first point, neither a theocratic regime, nor a jurisdiction list one could be legitimate in the Italian juridical order. According to the second point, concordant with the Catholic Church, although they are normal international treaties, assume particular relevance in internal juridical order. In fact, Parliament can not abrogate the laws of execution of the concordant with the Holy See unilaterally, without following the special procedure defined for the modification or abrogation of constitutional law.

The Italian system religious freedom reflects (and in a certain sense anticipates) the European pattern of this right that can be summarized in three main points:

1)The prominence of the individual conscience, namely the right of each person to take the decision on religion that he/she deems in compliance with his/her conscience in absolute freedom, without the choice entailing any negative consequences on juridical grounds. The apostate, the atheist and the worshipper of a minority religion are not subject, due to their religious or conscience choice, to any decrease of civil or political rights due to all citizens. This implies that each individual not only has the right to adopt a religion, but also to leave or change it: the person who leaves the religious group he/she belongs to (even in the event of having belonged it to since birth) exercises a right that the state is obliged to guarantee against everyone, including the religious group that is abandoned.

2)The lack of competence of the state on religious matters and the independence of religious communities, (is in accordance with the idea of the state’s incompetence typical of the) Christian doctrine and, at the same time, of the liberal thought.(According to this principle,) religious faith can not be placed outside the law only because their doctrine contains precepts that are in contrast with the law of the state.

3)The “selective collaboration between states and religious communities which is the case of Italy like) the European states, tends to be willing to collaborate with all religious groups. However, this willingness has never been indiscriminate: it is wider where there is harmony between the values underlying the religious society and those that form the foundation of civil society; it is narrower where this harmony does not exist.

7) GREECE
There is no general law to regulate the wearing of headscarf or the public use of other religious symbols. In Athens, a headmaster of the school did not let a 13 years old Egyptian girl get into school. Hereupon, Europidis Stilyanidis, the Greece Minister of Education and Religion, declared that the headmaster is wrong and as Greece is a democratic country all the students have the freedom of choice. And Stilyanidis continues; ”We live in a Democratic European country. People may choose freely their own religions and they may determine with their own consent whatever they want to wear in the direction of their religion that they have chosen. There has no reservations wearing headscarf at school. So the headmaster is obliged to let her in with her scarf.

By contrast with what institutionally happens in almost all the countries of the European Union, in Greece there is a “prevailing religion” that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Laicité-in spite of its greek etymological origin-,does not exist in Greece. Religious freedom in Greece is guarenteed by article 13 of the Constitution. Religious freedom consists of freedom of conscience and freedom of worship. Freedom of religious conscience covers all religious, non-religious or atheistic beliefs, as well as dogmatic and administrative differences within any religion (heresy or schism) and all persons, Greek or alien, according to the principle of equality (Constitution. articles 4 and 13). The freedom of religious conscience is absolute; the Constitution sets no limitations. Not the common legislator imposes restrictive provision.

8) DENMARK
There are no rules or regulations regarding the wearing of veils or any other religious symbols in Denmark. Neither are there clear rules preventing discrimination against women wearing veils. Veil discrimination therefore relies on the existing legal framework against various forms of discrimination/ The Danish Constitution guaranties freedom of religion. Besides this constitutional right, hate speech is illegal according to the Danish penal code’s paragraph 266 b.Ofte consideration for the constitutional right of freedom of expression has carried greater weight than 266 b.

Denmark also has the Law Prohibiting Discrimination because of Race etc. In 1996, the Law against Discriminatory Behaviour on the Labour Market was passed. This made it illegal to discriminate in employment, including discrimination in hiring and firings, against people because of their race, skin color, ethnic origin, religion or faith, sexual orientation, age and disability.

In Scandinavian countries, muslims do not encounter with any restrictions. Moreover, the public and the private companies, for their headscraved employers, are manufacturing headscarves with the company logos on them. In Denmark, military authorities make such statements as “Any soldier may wear headscarf if they want it to”. However, burqa is the only exception. There are also different regulations in case of veiling the faces. Thus, the Prime Minister and the head of the Supreme Court reacted to the demand of the restriction of wearing headscarf public area and in schools. Rasmussen call for on this matter and stated that “This is effective both for public and private life also. So let the Muslim women be free in that matter”.

9) NETHERLANDS
There is no general law to regulate the wearing of headscarf or the public use of other religious symbols. In Netherlands there are also veiled lawyers. There is no single law on religion in the Netherlands. The state is open to religions and supports them. It is accepted that religious elements motivate people and the religion itself can not be carried on regardless. No general law exists, except for some clothing regulations in the police force, ministries and judiciary that limit the right to express freedom of religion when the function concerns both authority and impartiality.

The separate legal advises of the Equal Treatment Commission serve as exemplary when a clothing rule (il)legally discriminates on grounds of religion (or other grounds for that matter).
Indirect discrimination (for instance, a general clothing rule that forbids face-covers at public schools) can be legally justified, if the means are outweighed by the ends and are both necessary and appropriate to reach a legitimate goal.

10) SPAIN and BELGIUM
In Spain and Belgium, there can not be seen any negative practices regarding the wearing Islamic headscarf in schools. On the contrary, a veiled woman was elected as a deputy in Spain. Likewise , another veiled woman is being elected to the District Parliament of Brussel in Belgium. Before the oath ceremony, the Valon Party prepared a “Headscarf Ban” draft to not to let Mahinur Özdemir (the first headscarved deputy of Brussel Parliament) get into the building. This situation is resulted a big wave of reaction towards the Party and finally she has been charged with secretaryship as the youngest deputy of the Parliament.

VI. INSTANCES OF HEADSCARF AND ASSESSMENT ON THE COMMON PRACTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION

When the European Union practices were reviewed, though there was not found a general consensus among the European Union countries, observed that no any country put into practice a general prohibition on headscarf. Personal discrimination based on religion is punished in the European Union. Though different practices have been found, it is possible to conclude that these are individual instances and laws regarding discrimination are complied with in general.

That the people to be able to live in peace all together is just possible through to be able to express their differences in freedom. Religious identities and beliefs form one of the most important source of differences among people. Accordingly, for the people to be able to live in peace all together, there is needed the freedom of religion and conscience above all.

As the same situation applies to Bulgaria, discrimination should not be performed on women wearing headscarves. Religious symbols cannot be considered separate from religion and cannot be subjected to isolation. Serious intervention of the state to religious symbols in public areas will violate the freedom of religion being one of the earliest concepts of freedom acknowledged in terms of international human rights law.

VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND RELIGION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES AND ATTITUDE OF MEMBER STATES TOWARDS RELIGION
European Union countries do not draw a harsh line between secularism and the freedom to manifest religious belief. Contrarily, plurality is provided with a structuring process on the basis of autonomy and cooperation.

European Union has not got any general and binding project concerning the fulfillment of religious orders on the enforcement of religion-state relations and religious services. Therefore, the European Union member states have the possibility to maintain their national projects after their membership. Religious freedom has been secured as a whole in the international conventions to be secured.

At the basis of the concept of religious freedom in question lies individual conscience rule, that is, the right to decide on religion and belief which the person considers to be in accord with the dictates of his/her own conscience absolutely in atmosphere of freedom as not to bear any negative consequences on legal ground.

As in the Eastern Europe, even in the Western Europe apostates, atheists and members of a minority religion never be confronted with any diminution because of their religion and conscience in the civil and political rights being equal and common for all citizens.

Still contained within many constitutions, attributes referring to God, religion and religious communities discuss the purpose of ensuring freedom of religion and disciplining the relationship between government and religious communities. Decomposition of state and religion in the European Union countries does not mean two of them will not be in co-operation any more. After the collapse of communism, co-operation between states and religions has been not an exceptional fact but as if it has been a rule in the whole of Europe. This co-operation may have various scopes, may include various issues, may have occurred in various legal forms. However, even in the states where there is a strict separation or as in the states like France where the flag of secularism waves, the collaboration system, in which public authorities take part at one side and religious communities at the other side is not only effective but also in rise.

What the important on the freedom of religion in the European Union is the protection of individual rights. Constitutions of European Union member states and international conventions they signed contain a legal basis focusing on two topics.
a) To guarantee the right that each citizen reveals his religious beliefs in an equal basis with other citizens belonging to other religions
b) To allow members of any religious community to come together, practice their belief and legally set up religious communities and associations within the state's judicial system

Even there exist differences among countries’ individual national systems, these are being tried to be minimized with the ECHR case law.

Already, its acknowledgement of non-faith-based organizations also and legal obligation of this mean that the EU has agreed the relationship between state and religion. Even in cases which the Union does not recognize them as institutions it is also open to co-operation. Bulgaria should take this fact into consideration.

VIII. NATURAL OBLIGATIONS OF ACCESSION TO EUROPEAN UNION
Bulgaria is a European Union country. As it is known, states participating in the European Union are required to acknowledge all the judicial structure of the unity acquis, to apply and to put into effect it.

However, acquis communautaire should not be considered just as agreements, regulations established by the EU institutions and directives and the decisions of the European Court of Justice. The open-ended characteristic of the acquis communautaire has been caused by the Europea’s forming units and its replication power and distribution of historical development between EU and the member states.

Therefore, besides the law which was directly established by the EU institutions, two other law groups also playing a role in the formation of acquis communautaire are the law of member states and international law.

Article 6 states;
“European Union has been founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law being common in all member states. European Union, with the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed on December 4, 1950 in Rome acknowledged to respest to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the member states' common constitutional traditions and general principles of Community law.

Therefore, the human rights recognized by the EU and necessitated to respect their judicial system are derived from the following basic elements:
A) EU judicial provisions
B) European Convention on Human Rights
C) Evaluation of the EU states according to the common constitutional traditions

According to the article 49(1) of the Treaty on the EU (TEU) which is acknowledged in the documents and implementations of the EU, “every European state which respects to the principles held in article 6(1) can apply for the EU membership.” These requisite principles being common in all the member states are “freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental rights and the rule of law.” These are part of the “acquis communautaire” being a poetry of complex and dynamic laws fed from multiple sources within the ongoing development. When a new state becomes a member of the EU, it should accept this living heritage and should contribute to the change of new constitutional traditions from the point of view these are the part of the acquis communautaire.

Especially since the end of the 1980s, European Union has begun to put at center the rhetoric of human rights in its relations with other countries. In 1986 ministers for foreign affairs of member countries stated through a declaration they published " they were committed to protect and support human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

In 1987 the European Parliament, having the power of “assent” with the coming into force of the Single European Act, began to pressure on the other bodies of the EU in the matter of the human rights case to be a factor which should be taken into consideration in the foreign affairs.

Assembled in Luxemburg in July 1991 the Council of European Union explained that “the European community and its member states will protect and develop the human rights and fundamental freedoms all over the world from now on.” Additionally, the matter of human rights and fundamental freedoms appears in the article 130(u) that takes part in the “Development Co-operation” that is relevant to the foreign affairs of the Treaty of Maastricht that founded the European Community and constituted the seventeenth title of the treaty; and also in the article J.1 of common foreign policy and defence policy. Besides it is possible to find this human rights provision and treaty suspense provisions when it comes to the human rights in the all major cooperation treaties that the EU signed with other foreign countries. In addition to all this, article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam first and second paragraphs, openly states that the EU was set up on democracy and respect for human rights. Although this article may seem related to domestic affairs of the EU, according to the leading EU lawyers this article must doubtless wise has an effect on foreign policy.

IX. EQUALITY OF MAN AND WOMAN ACCORDING TO THE EUROPEAN UNION NORMS
The literacy rate that is against women in Bulgaria, the enrollment ratio, lack of education for females due to the traditions, customs and patriarchal society are among priorities seeking solutions for development. The girls’ deprivation of education also clearly creates an economical form of discrimination.

At this point, it should not be underestimated that restriction of the right to education by reason of wearing headscarf will have negative consequences on women's rights. When the headscarf is banned in the educational institutions, it will be held as discrimination for it will be the restriction of a religious obligation performed by women. Primarily the rights of women will have been limited.

Women’s participation in the economical, social and political spheres and to ensure gender equality in these fields are among the fundamental objectives of the European Union. EU legislation contains detailed provisions relating to gender equality.

There are 4 articles and 13 directives concerning equality of men and women in the legislation. The European Union institutions have been making studies in many different fields for the prevention of social differences between men and women and the reduction of social differences between men and women. Among these studies take place “increasing general education and vocational training opportunities aimed at women with the same purpose.” Exclusion of women from educational institutions will not serve this purpose.

European Union states that “gender mainstreaming” is necessary in the context of the strategy of the Union aimed at achieving equal opportunities between men and women. The issue of necessity for governments and other society actors to act with the perspective of social gender equality while creating policies and programs and to make analyses on how these decisions will affect women and men before taking decisions were adopted at Beijing Platform for Action in 1995. Treaty of Amsterdam under articles 2 and 3 express clearly that to eliminate inequalities and improve equalities are among the objectives and tasks of the Union. In the Union’s document of Framework Strategy on Gender Equality it is indicated that democracy is the basic value for the European Union member states and candidate countries and plays a key role in the development policies of the Union; and it is emphasized that to be able to take place this understanding of the European Union in the strict sense depends on the representation of all citizens, women and men in economy, in decision-making, in all fields of social, political and cultural life as equal. It is emphasized that the necessity to equally ensure the participation and representation in all areas of life depends on the policies which will affect the lives of men and women directly or indirectly to target gender equality; and to take into account women’s interests, needs and requests with the same importance of the men on creation and implementation of policies. It has been underlined in the document that special precautions must be taken in favour of women to eliminate ongoing disparities.

Hence the European Parliament, Parliamentary Commission on Gender Equality and Women’s Rights is authorized on those matters:
1) Description, protection and promotion of women’s rights within the Union and the measures to be taken in this regard by the Union
2) Promotion of women’s rights in third countries
3) Policies of Equal Opportunity between men and women including also equal treatments and opportunities in the employment market
4) Elimination of all types of gender-based discrimination
5) To incorporate “Gender Mainstreaming” into the all sectors and maintain its continuity
6) To put into practice the international treaties and covenants regarding women’s rights and follow-up
7) Information policies related to the women

Support of the “equality between men and women” as a result of the replacement of the European Community Treaty with the Treaty of Amsterdam has evolved into a principle which needs to be mindful and actualized for the whole area of activities of the Community.

According to the recommendations on Gender Equality standards and mechanism of Ministerial Committee gender equality is not only women’s issue. At the same time it is a concern for the men and affects society as a whole.

Women and men’s choice of education and their success affect their professional career and their position in individual and family life within the community. Therefore, Governments have obligation to promote access to education as a right for girls and boys, women as well as men, on an equal basis, at all levels of education, lifelong learning, science, research and culture.

In the Declaration on Equality of Women and Men, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1988, it was clearly stated that ‘’equality of women and men is a principle of human rights, upheld as a fundamental right in many international instruments’’. Further it was acknowledged that ‘’sex-related discrimination in the political, economic, social, educational, cultural areas and in any other fields poses obstacles to the recognition, enjoyment and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms’’

This view has been confirmed by the international community, namely in the Beijing Platform for Action in 1995 and in the concluding document of the special session of the General Assembly in 2000, as well as in the political Declaration from the 49th session of the United Nation Commission, the Status of Women in 2005.

The ban of headscarf in the educational institutions will lead to discrimination that violates these obligations. As a matter of fact, the European Parliament expresses that against the women wearing headscarf are made an indirect discrimination in working life. Paragraph 56 of the European Parliament Resolution dated 13 February 2007 and regarding the role of women in the social, economic and political life in Turkey asked Turkey “to provide relevant facts and figures on the discrimination against women including also the headcovered women’s access to the labor market with the aim of determining whether there is a risk of indirect discrimination based on gender.”

As a consequence, Bulgaria should not perform such discrimination criticized in the international community.

X. DISCUSSING THE TOPIC WITH CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION (CEDAW)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) gives the obligation to State parties to provide equal rights on social, cultural, private, political and all spheres to men and women.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) emphasis on the equality between women and men on the right of education. 10. matter states that:
“State parties takes all the measures to abolish inequality and women to have equal rights with men and termination of discrimination; thus, aims to secure especially claiming equal rights to men and women.”

According to the convention, state parties have promised to;
- To avoid any action and application that is a discrimination against women, and provide obedience of public establishments and institutions to this obligation,
- Prevent any person, institution, or establishment to discriminate against women,
- To take any measures to change or abolish any current laws, legal regulations, traditions and applications that makes discrimination against women,
- To abolish every national criminal law that makes discrimination against women

Point of origin of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) is not equality but “abolishment of discrimination”. Therefore, State parties, ratifying or acceding to the Convention and thereby accepting a legal obligation to counteract all kind of subtle or obscene discrimination.

The convention does not sufficate with counteracting legal discrimination. It also anticipates the rights given to women legally to be used also practically.

Thus, Beijing Declaration, makes the States as obliged on the issues as empowerment and progress of women, raising equality between woman and man and to establish a perspective of gender in politics and programmes and anticipates implementation of the Platform for Action.

Platform for Action is defined as the agenda of empowerment of women. It indicates that, the obstacles to women's public participation in all spheres of public and private lives can be abolished through a full and equal share in economic, social, cultural and political decision-making.

In this regard the Beijing Declaration article 72. states that: Creation of an educational and social environment, in which women and men, girls and boys, are treated equally and encouraged to achieve their full potential, respecting their freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and where educational resources promote non-stereotyped images of women and men, would be effective in the elimination of the causes of discrimination against women and inequalities between women and men.

For this reason, CEDAW, has emphasized on the negative effects of the current discrimination on education, while evaluating the periodic report of women rights which has given by Turkish State. It has been indicated that “the effects of the ban of headscarf at schools and university on girls and women should be considered” and statistical data on the issue have been requested.

Therefore, it should not be forgotten that interference to ban the headscarf at schools in Bulgaria, will have deep and oppressive effects on muslim women and girls. Banning headscarf as a symbol will restrict the freedom of muslim students wearing headscarf as a religious obligation. The ban will result students to change themselves, in the door of the school as if they have double personality. This will give damages that cannot be repaired to their self esteem. Women, who cannot bear this psychologically, will confine themselves to their houses. Thus, the ban will be concluded with them to be deprived of social life, education and working life.

Therefore, it is obvious that the restrictions that a woman encounter with because of her religious identity, have a discriminative character; additionally, these discriminative practices will prevent women to participation to social life and they will be isolated.

However, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that women, fully and equally benefit from all human rights and essential freedoms, and it is the state’s responsibility to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent the violation of these rights and freedoms. Turkey is also bound by the Beijing Declaration which requires signatory governments to ensure the empowerment and advancement of women, promote equality of the genders, and include social gender perspectives into policies and programs. The Beijing Declaration also requires that governments form Platforms for Action. One of the main objectives of these platforms was determined to be the empowerment of women, and the ending of all discrimination against women.

Including women in economical and social life is one of the best ways to provide sex equality. Change for an equal society would be possible if women obtain their educational and economical rights. Economical independence is an important factor for women to be empowered. Also,making women stronger depends on having education.

For women to do a serious critic on patriarchal thoughts and behaviors, they need to have education. Ban for headscarf/hijab, will prevent women to have equal education and cause an inferior education. The ban will affect women negatively. Although, the claim is to save headscarved women from oppression, the ban will result them to be oppressed more.

Therefore, the negative affects of banning of religious symbols should be considered. This regulation applied to headscarved women is a kind of harassments organized legally towards women. Neither state or the family should not have right to decide for a grown up instead of her. The right to give her own decision should be given to women. In the second matter of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, it is stated that State parties “condemn all kind of discrimination” and accept to prevent the discrimination “with all means”. “All kind of discrimination” as a term, undoubtly, includes all kind of discrimination based on religion and sex.
That means, Bulgaria should not discriminate women since they wear headscarf, depending on CEDAW.

XI- RESULT AND GENERAL EVAULATION
Using the religious symbols, carrying the religious symbol in one’s body is included in the freedom of religion and announcement of faith. Headscarf, for the individual who wears as a religious necessity, is the freedom to enounce her religion and faith that is taken into guarantee by human rights’ law. Headscarf should be interpreted with tolerance and considering pluralist values.

Headscarf is not only enouncement of the religion and faith but a necessity for a lot of muslim women. It is not possible to refer to basic right and freedom, freedom of education, religion and consciousness, when the other people decide for women to wear or not to wear headscarf, and when they are punished by denying their rights when they do not obey what is decided.

When the headscarf, which is defined as a symbol, is accepted as a threat for the society, this restraint is not just for the individuals but also for the expression of the essence of religion. Therefore, the state as a neutral actor would be in position to refer a religion as “enemy”.

Banning headscarf in institutions of education will give no gain to Bulgaria in short or long term; however, it will prevent integration of the society. Restricted individuals will have psychological difficulty accepting the authority of the state and they will refuse loyalty to state. That will cause communication problems between the individual and the state. Individuals whose rights have been restricted will feel injustice, and feel themselves as foreigners and strangers who do not belong to the society they live in. Thus, this ban will effect social peace negatively and result in divisions. Intolerance for different people and banning the symbols will destroy pluralism and democracy.

Banning the religious clothing in Bulgaria, would affect not only women negatively, but also violate the conditions of international law against discrimination, and right for equal education. At this point, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Human Rights Committee should be taken into consideration and it should not be forgotten that there is no ban for headscarves in any higher education institution of any EU country. The law banning the religious symbols should not be accepted in the parliament, and necessary actual and legal precautions should be taken.