Rights organisations and Muslim women shocked at European court ruling that France has right to ban full-face veil in public

Anti-discrimination organisations have expressed shock after the European court of human rights ruled that France has the right to ban women from wearing the full-face veil in public in the interests of everyone "living together".

The judges ruled that the contested ban affected a group of Muslim women but did not take away their freedom to wear in public clothing or items that did not hide their faces.

"The question of accepting or not that the full veil can be worn in public is a society's choice," they ruled on Tuesday.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the UK human rights pressure group Liberty, said the ban "has nothing to do with gender equality and everything to do with rising racism in western Europe".

She added: "How do you liberate women by criminalising their clothing? If you suspect bruises under a burqa, why punish the victim, and if you disapprove of the wearer's choices, how does banishing her from public engagement promote liberal attitudes?"

The law, active in France and Belgium and known as the "burqa ban", was introduced in 2010 and makes it illegal for anyone to "cover their face" in a public place. Lawyers for the French government had argued – successfully – at the court in Strasbourg that the ban applied also to balaclavas and hoods.

Law student Stéphanie Lécuyer, 39, who lives in Nice with her daughter, and who wears a niqab in public after converting to Islam 21 years ago, said: "I am so upset. So upset. I didn't expect the court to lift the ban, but I hoped they would modify the law.

"Perhaps now is not the time to comment. It's all too raw and emotional. I'm still in shock. I've been wearing the niqab for many years and all I want is to live in peace. It's never been an obstacle for me in my life. I know the clothing is not seen as moderate, but I am very moderate.

"If I go somewhere and need to show my face for security reasons, I do so. It really has never been a problem. Surely there are more important things happening in the world, terrible things in the name of religion, some of those things in the name of Islam, but all more important than this?"

Izza Leghtas, a researcher on western Europe for Human Rights Watch, said the judgment was disappointing. "Bans like this undermine the rights of women who choose to wear the veil and do little to protect those who are compelled to do so, just as laws in other countries forcing women to dress in a particular way undermine their rights to freedom of religion and expression."

Tuesday's case was brought by a 24-year-old Frenchwoman, who was not named but was described as being of Pakistani origin, who wore the burqa, which covers the entire head and body, and the niqab, which leaves only her eyes uncovered.

She was represented by British solicitors from Birmingham, who claimed the outlawing of the veil was contrary to six articles of the European convention on human rights. It was, they argued, "inhumane and degrading, against the right of respect for family and private life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of speech and discriminatory".

The court heard that the law affected a small number of women; out of an estimated 5 million Muslims living in France – the exact figure is unknown as it is illegal to gather data by religion or ethnic group – only around 1,900 women were concerned by the ban in 2009. French officials told the judges this figure had since dropped by half "thanks to a major public information campaign carried out at the time".

The court admitted the general ban could appear to be an overreaction to a small problem and said it was "extremely worried" by the Islamophobic declarations made during the parliamentary debate.

"This ban has a very strong negative impact on the situation of women who have made the choice of wearing the full veil for reasons linked to their beliefs," the judges said, adding that the legislation had "risked contributing to and consolidating stereotypes affecting certain categories of people and encouraging expressions of intolerance".

The complainant, identified only by the initials SAS, was described as a "perfect French citizen with a university education … who speaks of her republic with passion".

Her lawyer, Tony Muman, told the European court (ECHR) last November: "She's a patriot", adding that she had suffered "absolutely no pressure" from her family or relatives to wear the burqa and was prepared to uncover her face for identity checks, but insisted on the right to wear the veil.

The European judges decided otherwise, declaring that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.

Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian authorities who introduced a similar full-face veil ban in 2011 and who were party to the French defence, declared the burqa and niqab incompatible with the rule of law.

Aside from questions of security and equality, she said: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing".

The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", she said.

The ECHR has already upheld France's ban on headscarves in educational establishments, and its regulation requiring the removal of scarves, veils and turbans for security checks.

Tuesday's legal decision came a few days after France's highest court, the cour de cassation, upheld the firing of a female creche worker for "serious misconduct" after she arrived for work wearing a veil. The woman has said she will appeal against the decision to the ECHR.

Jonathan Birchall, of the Open Society Foundations established by the billionaire financier George Soros, said: "We are all rather shocked by today's burqa ban ruling … the court seems to have invented a new legal concept to justify the ban."

He said German and Swedish judges at the ECHR had already made "scathing" rulings on the living-together concept, declaring it "far-fetched and vague".

"The concept of living together does not fall directly under any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed within the (human rights) convention," they wrote.

"It is true that 'living together' requires the possibility of interpersonal exchange. It is also true that the face plays an important role in human interaction. But this idea cannot be turned around, to lead to the conclusion that human interaction is impossible if the full face is not shown.

"This is evidenced by examples that are perfectly rooted in European culture, such as the activities of skiing and motorcycling with full-face helmets and the wearing of costumes in carnivals. Nobody would claim that in such situations (which form part of the exceptions provided for in the French law) the minimum requirements of life in society are not respected. People can socialise without necessarily looking into each other's eyes."