In a Grand Chamber advisory opinion, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Belgium many deny a person the right to work as a security guard because he belongs to a religious movement that poses a threat to the state. In Requested by the Conseil d’État of Belgium, (ECHR, Dec. 14, 2023), the Belgian Ministry of Interior had withdrawn the identification card of a security guard who was a supporter of the scientific branch of Salafism. The Ministry gave the following justifications:
... [S]cientific Salafism represents a threat to our model of society and to our country. Any security guard or officer must display conduct that is respectful of the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens and must respect democratic values....
Even though you have stated that you reject any violence in the name of Islam, the State Security Service has nevertheless indicated that you are a supporter of an ideology which, in particular, questions the legitimacy of Belgian law, advocates community sectarianism, fosters a backward view of the role of women and takes positions which threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens by a reactionary vision seeking to rid Islam of all its non-Islamic evolutions and influences.
The Court in its Advisory Opinion concluded:
The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: (1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; (2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; (3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; (4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims that it pursues; and (5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective and surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards, such as to ensure compliance with the requirements listed above.
