Salzburg Administrative Court Confirms Penalty Against Hotel Owner Over Burkini Ban in Pool

The Regional Administrative Court classified the conduct as discrimination on the basis of the religious affiliation of the affected women. In its legal reasoning, the court explained that hygienic arguments would not apply, "da Burkinis aus denselben Materialien wie andere Badebekleidung bestehen und die routinemäßigen Wasserüberprüfungen keinerlei Auffälligkeiten zeigten." The absence of a written bathing or swimming policy and the fact that the alleged rule was only sporadically enforced would additionally underscore that no objective, substantively justified reasons for the ban existed.

Court's Reasoning

„Sie haben dadurch diese Personen aufgrund ihres religiösen Bekenntnisses diskriminiert und sie gehindert, eine Dienstleistung in Anspruch zu nehmen, die für den allgemeinen öffentlichen Gebrauch bestimmt ist", heißt es in dem Erkenntnis des Landesverwaltungsgerichtes. The court made clear that a hotel that opens its pool to guests is bound by the rules of anti-discrimination law.

In addition to the 100-euro fine already imposed by the district administration authority, the hotel operator must pay a further 20 euros as a contribution to the costs of the criminal proceedings at the Regional Administrative Court. The penalty is therefore now final, provided no further legal remedy is filed within the statutory deadline.

One of the affected women contacted the Salzburger Nachrichten after the decision. She stated: „Mir ist durchaus bewusst, dass sich viele Bürgerinnen und Bürger dieses Landes für ein Burkiniverbot aussprechen würden; als Juristin halte ich fest, dass die Benachteiligung eines Menschen nur dann keine Diskriminierung darstellt, wenn sie sachlich gerechtfertigt ist, etwa weil dadurch ein Schaden verhindert wird." According to her own account, the woman works as a lawyer and peace activist.

Reaction of the Affected Woman

The woman also described that many Muslim women depend on wearing a burkini for religious reasons and consider it a deep humiliation to be forced to undress, even though no harm is done to anyone by doing so. She appealed to supporters of such a ban to take the perspective of the affected women into account.

The court also pointed to a further aspect in its decision: „Ebenso vermögen subjektive Befindlichkeiten anderer Gäste eine Ungleichbehandlung rechtlich nicht zu legitimieren." It is therefore not permissible to justify unequal treatment on the grounds of other guests' discomfort when no substantive reason exists.

Significance for the Debate in Austria

Since the ruling was published, the case has sparked discussion in Austria about the relationship between religious freedom, entrepreneurial house rules, and protection against discrimination. In several European countries, similar burkini debates at public swimming pools and hotel facilities have already been the subject of court disputes.

The Salzburg Regional Administrative Court has jurisdiction over administrative criminal proceedings at first instance. Its rulings may be challenged within four weeks of service by lodging an appeal with the Administrative Court of Appeal, provided a legal question of fundamental importance is involved.

In the case at hand, it concerns a hotel-owned pool that, according to the court, constitutes a service "for general public use." This classification is decisive because anti-discrimination law applies particularly strongly at such locations, even when the property is privately operated.

The decision forms part of a growing body of European rulings protecting religious swimwear in publicly accessible swimming pools. Supporters see it as a strengthening of religious freedom, while critics fear restrictions on the house rules of private operators.

No information was initially available about the hotel chain itself or about the further course of proceedings after the appeal deadline had expired. The Salzburger Nachrichten was the first to report on the decision.