Since the 2026/27 academic year began on September 1, female students under 14 in Austria have been barred from wearing headscarves that cover the head in accordance with Islamic traditions.
Teachers’ representatives report that the rule has generally been implemented calmly and respectfully, though some schools have encountered conflicts and, in certain instances, aggressive reactions.
The legislation was already controversial prior to its enactment, with critics questioning its compatibility with freedom of religion and the principle of equality.
In 2020, Austria’s Constitutional Court (VfGH) overturned a previous ban that had prohibited primary school pupils from wearing religious or ideologically motivated head coverings, a rule that applied to children until the end of the school year in which they turned 10.
However, the VfGH determined that the rule violated the principles of equality and freedom of religion, finding that the law was, in practice, primarily targeted at the “Islamic” headscarf.
The new law sets a higher age limit.
The government argues that the primary goal is to protect children’s development and their freedom to grow as individuals, claiming girls should be shielded from potential family or social pressure to wear a headscarf.
The VfGH has yet to rule on whether this revised justification and the ban’s new design adequately address the previously raised constitutional concerns.
Teachers Responsible for Enforcement
For now, schools and teachers bear the responsibility of implementing the ban.
If a teacher notices a pupil wearing such a headscarf despite the ban, they must first ask the pupil to remove it. If the pupil refuses, further discussions will occur, and if necessary, the education authority will be involved. Administrative penalty proceedings can only be initiated at later stages.
Students who repeatedly violate the ban face a multi-stage process, and parents or guardians could be fined between €150 and €800 if the headscarf continues to be worn after being asked to remove it.
Teachers’ union representatives have criticized the obligation for teachers to report breaches, warning that it risks placing them in a monitoring role that exceeds their educational duties.
Reports of Threats and School Refusal
Possible threats and refusal to attend school have also entered the debate surrounding the new law.
Even before the law was passed, Austria’s government pointed to cases where girls or women were pressured both to wear and to remove a headscarf.
Integration Minister Claudia Plakolm referenced instances of threats within families.
Currently, there are no statistics showing how often such situations arise in Austrian schools.
Reports of pupils who do not attend lessons at all or only irregularly due to the headscarf ban still need to be properly assessed, with indications of isolated cases of refusal and conflict.
Supporters argue that girls at this age are particularly dependent on their families and could therefore be exposed to considerable social or religious pressure.
Critics counter these concerns by questioning whether a state ban truly strengthens the self-determination of the pupils involved, arguing that a girl who wishes to wear a headscarf “of her own conviction” can no longer follow through with that decision at school due to the ban.
Education experts also raise concerns. Psychologist Christiane Spiel warned on ORF of potential loyalty conflicts for children if parents insist on wearing a headscarf while the school demands its removal.
Pending Constitutional Challenge
Before the law came into force, several parents had already attempted to challenge it directly before the VfGH.
The court rejected these applications on formal grounds, as those concerned had not yet been directly affected by the law at that time.
A new application to strike down the law has now been filed.
The key issue, once again, is likely to be the relationship between freedom of religion and the principle of equality.
Among other things, the court will have to examine whether protecting children from religious or family pressure justifies an “interference with freedom of religion” and whether a general headscarf ban is necessary and proportionate to achieve this goal.
