A woman with a visible tattoo should be allowed to join the police force if she wears a skirt

A ban on female police officers having visible tattoos whilst wearing their uniform constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of sex if that ban is combined with a requirement for women to wear a specific uniform. This is the opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-320/25. Once a judgment has been delivered, it will be necessary to ascertain whether the judges agree with this opinion.

A woman was excluded from the recruitment process to become a police officer because she has a tattoo on her left calf which would be visible when she wears the uniform for ceremonial occasions, which normally requires a skirt rather than trousers. In response to this decision, the aspiring police officer lodged an appeal with the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, arguing that the decision constituted discrimination on the grounds of sex, which is prohibited under European Union law. The Regional Administrative Court ordered that the candidate be admitted to the subsequent stages of the recruitment process, pending a ruling on the merits of the case.

Subsequently, the Council of State upheld the administration’s appeal against the Regional Administrative Court’s suspension order, stating that exclusion on the grounds of a tattoo visible when wearing the ceremonial uniform is not discriminatory. The Regional Administrative Court did not agree with this position and referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union before reaching a decision, pointing out that this uniform is worn only on high-profile institutional occasions, that even on such occasions women may be authorised to wear trousers, and that this uniform is not the standard one.

Italian regulations stipulate, on the one hand, that police officers may not have visible tattoos whilst wearing their uniform and, on the other, that standard uniforms differ between men and women. Taken in isolation, the Advocate General states, these provisions are not unlawful, but the combination of the two constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of sex because it results in one person being treated less favourably than another in a comparable situation. In practice, in this specific case, the woman is excluded from the recruitment process whilst a man with a tattoo on his calf is admitted.

Under EU Directive 2006/54, a difference in treatment regarding access to employment on the basis of a characteristic specific to one sex is permitted, but only where this is justified by the specific nature or context of the work, provided that the characteristic is essential and decisive, the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.