Niqab at the wheel – legal assessment and current judgments
Wearing a niqab that covers a Muslim woman’s face except for the eye area raises complex legal issues on the road. Two higher administrative courts (OVG) in Germany recently dealt with the issue, but came to different decisions. A look at the background and the legal considerations provides clarity.
1. Legal basis: Road Traffic Regulations (Section 23 Para. 4 StVO)
According to Section 23 Paragraph 4 of the StVO, drivers are prohibited from covering their faces while driving in such a way that identification is no longer possible. This regulation serves to ensure safety in road traffic, as the driver’s unrestricted view and his or her identification in the event of traffic violations must be guaranteed.
2. Case study: OVG Rhineland-Palatinate and the obstruction of visibility
A woman who wears a niqab due to her religious beliefs applied for an exemption from this regulation because her religious freedom was affected under Article 4 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). The application was rejected and the woman took the matter to court – without success.
The Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrative Court ruled that wearing a niqab hindered the driver’s view and therefore posed a potential danger to road traffic. In addition to the impairment of all-round visibility, the court also viewed the difficulty in identifying the driver as problematic (decision of August 13, 2024, no. 7 A 10660/23.OVG).
3. Comparison with OVG NRW: Different reasons
While the OVG Rhineland-Palatinate confirmed the transport authority’s decision, the OVG North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) decided differently in a similar case. Here the court complained that the authority had made errors of discretion. In particular, the argument that non-verbal communication was disrupted by the niqab was rejected by the court as an inadmissible consideration. In addition, the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia considered the imposition of a so-called logbook requirement to be a milder measure that should have been examined.
4. Logbook edition as an alternative?
A logbook requirement obliges vehicle owners to document the driver’s details for every trip. However, the OVG Rhineland-Palatinate rejected this as an inadequate alternative. The court emphasized that a logbook requirement could not guarantee the driver’s clear view and would not replace automated traffic monitoring.
5. Road safety is a priority
The Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate made it clear that the purpose of Section 23 Paragraph 4 of the StVO is to ensure road safety – both by preventing visual impairments and by ensuring that drivers can be identified in the event of violations. These protective goals are of outstanding importance and justify an interference with the plaintiff’s religious freedom.
6. Alternative transportation
Finally, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had reasonable alternatives available to ensure her mobility without violating her religious beliefs. She can use local public transport or switch to a motorcycle, for which helmets are required but there is no ban on wearing a veil.
Conclusion: religious freedom vs. traffic safety
The case shows the difficult balance between the fundamental right to religious freedom and the requirements for road safety. While the OVG NRW still saw errors of judgment on the part of the authority, the OVG Rhineland-Palatinate confirmed the authority’s decision and placed traffic safety in the foreground. It remains to be seen how case law will develop in similar cases.
(Decision of the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Rhineland-Palatinate of August 13, 2024, Ref. 7 A 10660/23.OVG)
Contact
If you need legal support in traffic law, MK LAW RECHTSANWALT will be happy to assist you. We will provide you with comprehensive advice on your rights and obligations.
