In overall terms the decision in Dogru is predictable based on the Courts' earlier decisions in Sahin v Turkey and Dahlab v Switzerland
The fact that the ECtHR has backed the French Ban along with the Courts refusal in MANN SINGH v. FRANCE to support a French Sikh who wanted to wear his Turban in his Driving Licence photo makes it clear that the ECtHR is giving the most restricted interpretation possible to Article 9.
All of these case make it crystal clear that the ECtHR has interpreted Article 9 of the ECHR in a way that provides absolutely no protection for religious rights connected with the wearing of religious dress. What is even more worrying is that the logic used in these cases all relies on the courts own, very subjective, view as to what is 'necessary in a Democratic Society' Article 9.2. In Article 9 cases the ECtHR seems to consistently assume that because a Governmental department wants something it thereby becomes 'necessary' as opposed to merely being 'desirable. Certainly the test applied by the ECtHR in defining what is 'necessary in a democratic society', Article 9.2, is put by the Court at a worryingly low level.