Austria's National Council on Thursday approved a controversial headscarf ban for girls under 14 in schools with broad cross-party support.
The measure prohibits head coverings worn "according to Islamic traditions" in all public and private schools, Austrian news agency ORF reported.
School events outside school grounds are excluded. Sanctions, including fines between €150 and €800, may be imposed starting in the 2026/27 academic year.
The government estimates around 12,000 girls could be affected.
Integration Minister Claudia Plakolm (OVP) described the headscarf as "a symbol of oppression," arguing that the law was necessary to safeguard children.
OVP leaders stressed that enforcement would not fall on teachers, who would only be required to inform school administrations.
The NEOS party backed the bill, framing it as a measure to protect children. Education Minister Christoph Wiederkehr said the law supports girls' personal development.
The FPO, which has long pushed for the ban, said the issue stemmed from "mass immigration" and argued the headscarf represents "political Islam."
The Greens were the only party to vote against the bill, despite expressing general sympathy for its stated aim.
Deputy parliamentary leader Sigrid Maurer warned the legislation mirrors an earlier ban struck down by the Constitutional Court in 2020 for violating equality principles.
"The government knows this will be overturned," she said.
Austria's Islamic Religious Community (IGGO) announced it will immediately appeal to the Constitutional Court, saying the law raises "constitutional and human rights concerns." The organization emphasized that it rejects coercion but must defend the rights of girls who wear the headscarf voluntarily.
Earlier, Muslim lawyers and educators had already signaled in a statement that they will challenge the legislation in the Constitutional Court.
They argue the new ban repeats provisions struck down in 2020, when judges ruled that such restrictions risk marginalizing Muslim girls and violate constitutional protections.
Legal experts say the government's revised justification remains weak and is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
