European Court of Human Rights: After Şahin: The debate on headscarves is not over, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, Grand Chamber Judgment of 10 November 2005, Application No. 44774/98

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 268-292

  Altiparmak, Kerem ^a   Karahanogullari, Onur ^a  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348955468     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1574019606002689     Document Type: Article

References (143)

1. ECtHR 10 Nov. 2005, Application No. 44774/98, Sahin v. Turkey Grand Chamber judgment, Hereinafter 'Şahin GC'.
2. Hereinafter 'Şahin C'. This judgment has already been the subject of several critiques: E. Bribosia and I. Rorive,'Le voile à l'école: une Europe divisée', Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme (2004), p. 951;
3. A. Nieuwenhuis, 'State and Religion, Schools and Scarves, An Analysis of the Margin of Appreciation as Used in the Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, Decision of 29 June 2004, Application Number 44774/98', 1 EuConst (2005), p. 495;
4. D.C. Decker, 'Leyla Sahin v Turkey', 6 European Human Rights Law Review (2004), p. 672
5. Amongst them see R (Shabina Begum) v. Head Teacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2005] EWCA Civ 199;
6. German Constitutional Court Judgment ona teacher's headscarf case, Judgment of 24 Sept. 2003, 2 BVerfGE 1436/02; Commission de réflexion sur l'application du principe de laïcité dans la République (2003), rapport au Président de la République, 11 déc. 2003 (available at ), Loi 2004-228 2004-03-15, Loi encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port degnesou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics. (1), D0, V:EN vigueur, 01, 2004-09-01.
7. See in general International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in the EU: Developments since September 11, (Vienna, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights 2005). (hereinafter IHF Report)
8. 'Muslim Girl Shaves Head over Ban' BBC, 1 Oct. 2004.
9. For the effects of 11 September on the European Court, see IHF Report; K Kanev 'Muslim religious freedom in the OSCE area after September 11', (2004) Helsinki Monitor 233;
10. K. Boyle, 'Human Rights, Religion and Democracy: The Refah Party Case', 1 Essex Human Rights Review (2004), p. 1.
11. For a critique of the Chamber's Sahin judgment see, Kerem Altiparmak, Onur Karahanoǧullari, 'Pyrrhus Zaferi: Leyla Sahin v. Türkiye, Ȧ IHM v. Hukuk, Düzenleyici ̇ Işlem v. Kanun' 3 Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi (2004), p. 249-276.
12. ECrtHR 13 Feb. 2003, Application Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey, (Grand Chamber).
13. The Chamber judgment contains stronger expression: '[...]those against regard it as a symbol of a political Islam that is seeking to establish a regime based on religious precepts and threatens to cause civil unrest and undermine the rights acquired by women under the republican system' Şahin, C, para. 31.
14. Once again at para. 159 the Court honours the domestic authorities: 'The university authorities judiciously sought a means whereby they could avoid having to turn away students wearing the headscarf and at the same time honour their obligation to protect the rights of others and the interests of the education system.'
15. See interview with Prof. Dr. Kemal Alemdaroǧlu, vice-chancellor of the Istanbul University, before his re-election for a second term. Available at , (4.12.2001).
16. Şahin, C, para. 99.
17. Şahin, G C, para. 111.
18. See Judge Tulkens' dissenting opinion, para. 17.
19. An unofficial translation of the Constitution can be found in the Constitutional Court's website: .
20. Şahin, GC, para. 95.
21. Şahin, GC, para. 96.
22. Judgment of 9 April 1991, Case No. 1990/36, Judgment No. 1991/8. Official Gazette, 31 July 1991, No. 20946,
23. See, Şahin, para. 38.
24. ECtHR 24 April 1990, Application No. 11801/85, Kruslin v. Finance, Series A No. 176-A, para. 29.
25. H. Petzold, 'The Convention and the Principle of Subsidiarity', in R.St.J. Macdonald, F. Matscher and H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dodrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993), p. 41;
26. G. Carozza, 'Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law', 97 AJIL (2003), p. 38.
27. ECtHR, 16 Dec. 1992, Application No. 13071/87. Edwards v. United Kingdom, Series A 247-B.
28. James A Sweeney, 'Margins of Appreciation: Cultural Relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era'. 54 ICLQ (2005), p. 459, 472.
29. Şahin, GC, para. 88.
30. W.J. Ganshof and Van Der Meersch, 'La caractère «autonome rt des termes et la «marge d'appréciation »des gouvernements dans l'interprétation de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme' in F. Matscher and H. Petzold (eds.), Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension, Studies in honour of Gérard J. Wiarda (Carl Heymans Verlag, Köln 1988), p. 201;
31. G. Letsas, 'The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR', 15 EJIL (2004), p. 279.
32. ECtHR 26 April 1979, Application No. 6538/74, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 1), Series A No. 30, para. 49;
33. ECtHR 13 July 1995, Application No. 18139/91, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 316-B, para. 37;
34. Şahin, para. 74.
35. ECtHR 18 June 1971, Application Nos. 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, Series A No 12, para. 93;
36. ECtHR 25 March 1985, Application No. 8734/79, Barthold v. Germany, Series A No. 90, para. 46.
37. ECtHR 2 Aug. 1984, Application No. 8691/79, Malone v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 82, para. 67;
38. ECtHR 4 May 2000, Application No. 28341/95 Rotaru v. Romania RJD 2000-V, para. 55.
39. A violation originating from administrative practice might be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects. But this does not mean that the administrative practice becomes binding law. In Turkey, many human rights violations are the result of constant, foreseeable and accessible administrative practices. It would be senseless to accept these practices as laws in the meaning of the Convention. To avoid this unsound result, the Court should adopt a gradual approach.
40. ECommissionHR, 3 May 1993, Application No. 16278/90, Karaduman v. Turkey, 74 DR 93, 109.
41. See also ECommissionHR, 3 May 1993, Bulut v. Turkey, Application No. 18783/91.
42. Arrowsmith v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7050/75, 19 DR 5, para. 71.
43. For an assessment of Arrowsmith test, see Carolyn Evans (2001), Freedom of Religion Under the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, OUP), p. 111 et seq.
44. Şahin, GC, para. 78;
45. Şahin, C, para. 71. According to this dictum, there still might be cases where wearing headscarves cannot be deemed to be a manifestation of religion.
46. See Article 2 of the Turkish Constitution.
47. See Carolyn Evans, supra n. 28, p. 499 et seq.
48. ECtHR 15 Feb. 2001, Application No 42393/98, Dahlab v. Switzerland, ECHR 2001-V;
49. ECommissionHR, 3 May 1993, Application No. 16278/90, Karaduman v. Turkey, 74 DR 93.
50. Şahin, GC, para. 115.
51. This rather odd connection was also made by the Court in the Refah case. In the Refah case, the policy statements made by Refah's leaders on the question of the Islamic headscarf were assessed as a supporting reason for the dissolution of the party. See ECtHR, Applications Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98 Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey, 31 July 2001 (Chamber), 13 Feb. 2003 (Grand Chamber) judgments. C, para. 73; GC, para. 95, 122 This approach has been rightly criticised.
52. See Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Fuhrmann, Loucaides and Sir Nicolas Bratza in the Chamber judgment; Boyle, supra n. 5, p. 7.
53. The Shabina case before the English Courts provides a good illustration on this point. At the Administrative Court, Bennett J. assessed the head teacher's and deputy head teacher's testimony on the danger caused by the litigant's claim to wear Jilbab. R on the application of Shabina Begum (through her litigation friend Sherwas Rahman) v. The Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2004] EWHC 1389 Admin);
54. [2004] ELR 374, paras. 82-91.
55. The Court of Appeal, while quashing this judgment, also made it clear that any court prohibiting religious garments in the public school should meticulously examine the facts of the case. See R on the application of Shabina Begum v. The Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2005] EWCA Civ 199, para. 81.
56. For an excellent review of the case, see G. Davies, 'Banning the Jilbab: Reflections on Restricting Religious Clothing in the Light of the Court of Appeal in SB v. Denbigh High School. Decision of 2 March 2005', 1 EuConst (2005), p. 511.
57. In the same line see Kanev, supra n. 5, p. 241-242;
58. Bribosia and Rorive, supra n. 2, p. 958.
59. Judge Tulkens' dissenting opinion in Şahin, GC, para. 10.
60. ECtHR 25 November 1996, Application No. 17419/90, Wingrove v. United Kingdom, RJD 1996-V, para. 53;
61. ECtHR 10 July 2003, Application No. 44179/98, Murphy v. Ireland para. 68.
62. The UN Human Rights Committee in its general comment on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion stated that 'Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated.' Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 35 (1994), para. 8.
63. See among other authorities, ECtHR 6 April 2000, Application No. 34369/ 97, Thlimmenos v. Greece, ECHR 2000-IV;
64. ECtHR 13 June 1979, Application No. 6833/74, Marckx v. Belgium Series A No. 31, para. 33;
65. ECtHR 27 June 2000, Application No. 27417/95, Cha'are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France, para. 87.
66. Şahin, GC, paras. 104-111.
67. It is interesting to note that in an opposite case, concerning strict dress requirements imposed upon women in public places, the Human Rights Committee held that these measures cannot be executed under the guise of public order and morality. Report of the Human Rights Committee, Volume I, GeneralAssembly Official Records, Fifty-third Session Supplement (1988), No. 40 (A/53/40), para. 133.
68. Carolyn Evans criticizes the Commission decision in Karaduman for its failure in examining this point. The same critique may be reiterated for the Court's position in the Şahin case. Carolyn Evans, supra n. 28, p. 206.
69. Şahin, GC, para. 121.
70. It is pertinent to note that, in the Shabina case, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Administrativc Court for this reason: 'Nobody who considered the issues on its bchalf started from the premise that the claimant had a right which is recognised by English law, and that the onus lay on the School to justify its interference with that right. Instead, it started from the premise that its uniform policy was there to be obeyed: If the claimant did not like it, she could go to a different school.' See R (Shabina Begum) v. Head Teacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2005] EWCA Civ 199, para. 76.
71. Among many authorities, see ECtHR 20 May 1999, Application No. 21980/93, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], ECHR 1999-III, para. 58;
72. ECtHR 17 Dec. 2004, Application No. 33348/95, Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], para. 88.
73. Şahin, GC, para. 121.
74. Judge Tulkens' dissenting opinion, para. 5.
75. ECtHR 19 Dec. 1994, Application No. 15153/89, the Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria, Series A No. 302, para. 38;
76. ECtHR 27 Sept. 1999, Application Nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, para. 89
77. As aptly stated by Bahia Tahzib-Lie, although in the balancing process more weight should be given to the woman's external freedom, whether the state's curtailment of external freedom will be considered justified will ultimately depend on the particulars of the individual case. See Bahia Tahzib-Lie, 'Applying Gender Perspective in the Area of the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief', BYU L. Rev (2000) p. 983.
78. See supra n. 32.
79. ECommissionHR 12 March 1981, Application No. 8160/78, X v. United Kingdom, 22 DR 27 (1981), 36, paras. 18 and 19.
80. ECtHR 1 July 1997, Application No. 20704/92, Kalaç v. Turkey 1997-IV RJD 1210;
81. ECtHR 24 Feb. 1998, Application Nos. 23372/94, 26377/94, 26378/94, Larissis and Others v. Greece 1998-I RJD 378;
82. ECommissionHR 6 Jan. 1993, Application No. 14524/89, Yanaşik v. Turkey, 74 DR 14;
83. ECtHR 6 Feb. 2003, Application No 45624/99, Akbulut v. Turkey
84. ECtHR 3 Oct. 2002, Application No. 45631/99, Başpinar v. Turkey;
85. ECtHR 8 July 2003, Application No. 45824/99, Şen and Others v. Turkey.
86. In some admissibility decisions, although the government explicitly admitted that the one of the reasons leading the Supreme Military Council (Yüksek Askeri Şura) to discharge the applicants from the army was the fact that the applicants' wives wore Islamic headscarves, the Court concluded that the Supreme Military Council's orders were not based on the applicants' or their wives' religious beliefs and opinions. ECtHR 11 Sept. 2001, Application No. 31876/96, Tepeli and Others v. Turkey;
87. ECtHR 3 Oct. 2002, Application No. 45823/99, Acarca v. Turkey
88. ECtHR 3 Oct. 2002, Application No. 48718/99, Balcι v. Turkey
89. ECtHR 3 Oct. 2002, Application No. 45824/99, Çelikateş and Others v. Turkey.
90. ECommissionHR 12 July 1978, Application No. 7992/77, X v. United Kingdom, 14 DR 234 (1978).
91. More recently see, ECtHR 11 Jan. 2005, Application No. 35753/03, Phull v. France, request for the removal of turban for safety check in an airport.
92. In the same line see the HRC decision in Bhinder v. Canada, No. 208/1986, 28 Nov. 1989, CCPR/C/37/D/208/1986.
93. National court decisions that were not cited by the Court are also in line with the same rationale. See for instance, House of Lords in Mandla v. Dowell Lee [1983] 1 ALL ER 1062;
94. French Conseil d'état in Kherouaa (1993) RDDP 220,
95. Yilmaz (1995) RDDP 249.
96. For a detailed study on the subject see S. Poulter, 'Muslim Headscarves in School: Contrasting Legal Approaches in England and France', 17 Oxford J. Legal Stud. (1997), p. 43.
97. Şahin, GC, para. 109.
98. See Dahlab decision, supra n. 32.
99. See the press release of Human Rights Watch released after the Şahin Chamber judgment. HRW, 'A Certain Lack of Empathy' . See also Judge Tulkens' dissenting opinion.
100. Şahin, GC, para. 55.
101. France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Finland. Şahin, GC, paras. 56-65.
102. Amongst them see R (Shabina Begum) v. Head Teacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2005] EWCA Civ 199.
103. Şahin, GC, para. 61.
104. Ibid., paras. 61-81.
105. Şahin, GC, para. 109.
106. Theodore S. Orlin, 'Religious Pluralism and Freedom of Religion: Its Protection in Light of Church/State Relationships', in A. Rosas, J. Helgesen (eds.) The Strength of Diversity, (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992), p. 89.
107. ECtHR 25 May 1993, Application No. 14307/88, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Series A. No. 260, para. 33;
108. ECtHR 3 Oct. 2002, Application No. 45631/99, Başpinar v. Turkey.
109. Y. Arai-Takahashi, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Antwerp, Intersentia 2002), p. 15.
110. See also Judge Tulkens' dissenting opinion, para. 2.
111. ECtHR 25 May 1993, Application No. 14307/88, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Series A. No. 260, para. 31;
112. ECtHR 26 Sept. 1996, Application No. 18748/91, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 1997-IV RJD, para. 44.
113. ECtHR 14 Dec. 1999, Application No. 38178/97, Şerif v. Greece.
114. Ibid., para. 53.
115. Ibid., para. 53.
116. Memorandum to the Turkish Government on Human Rights Watch's Concerns with Regard to Academic Freedom in Higher Education, and Access to Higher Education for Women who Wear the Headscarf, Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, 29 June 2004, p. 35.
117. In Turkey, the government fails to carry out this duty properly. Every year, during Ramadan, students who do not fast are faced with murderous attacks organised by Muslim and nationalist students.
118. Poulter, supra n. 56, p. 70;
119. Bahia Tahzib-Lie, supra n. 50, p. 982;
120. D. Schiek, 'Just a Piece of Cloth? German Courts and Employees with Headscarves', 33 Industrial Law J. (2004) p. 71-73;
121. Bribosia and Rorive, supra n. 2, p. 958- 959;
122. Judge Tulkens' dissenting opinion, para. 12.
123. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Womcn, G.A. Res. 34/180, 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, U.N. Doc. A/ 34/46, entered into force 3 Sept. 1981, 19 ILM (1980) p. 33.
124. For the Strasbourg case-law on the subject see. ECtHR 28 May 1985, Application Nos. 9214/80,9473/81,9474/81, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 94, para. 78;
125. ECtHR 24 June 1993, Application No. 14518/89, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, Series A No. 263, para. 67.
126. Dahlab decision, see supra n. 32.
127. A recent case concerning a Turkish male student who had been refused entry to the university campus was found inadmissible by the Court. Although the applicant claimed that the measure had violated his Article 9 rights, he did not assert that he grew his beard to observe any religious precept. See ECtHR, 24 May 2005, Application No. 8165/03, Tiǧ v. Turkey.
128. The President's thoughts can be found in his veto concerning Act No. 5227. No. B.01.0.KKB.01-18/A-9-2004-890, 3 Aug. 2004.
129. Türbanin şansi Yok' (Headscarf has no chance), Interview with Erdoǧan Teziç, Radikal, 26 July 2004;
130. 'Türbanin Son Karar' (Final Judgment on Headscarf), Hürriyet, 11 Nov. 2005.
131. See also Karaduman v. Turkey; Dahlab v. Switzerland.
132. Şahin, GC, para. 111;
133. Refah, GC, para. 95.
134. Şahin, C, para. 109;
135. Şahin, GC, para. 115;
136. Refah, GC, para. 124.
137. Fahlbeck mentions this point in the Karaduman decision. Reinhold Fahlbeck, 'Ora et Labora - on freedom of religion at the work place: A stakeholder cum balancing factors model', 20 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations (2004), p. 27.
138. Bribosia and Rorive, supra n. 2, p. 962.
139. Refah, GC, para. 103.
140. For a commentary on this point see N. Lerner, Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law, (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991), p. 84-87.
141. For a detailed work on the subject see A. Clapham, Human Rights in the Private Sphere (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1993).
142. Judge Martens, in the Kokkinakis case, asserted that the State does not have a duty to prevent proselytizing. Kokkinakis, dissenting opinion, para. 15. Evans finds this opinion insupportable given the explicit wording of Article 1 of the Convention. Malcolm D. Evans, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1997), p. 332.
143. Council of State, Section 2, Case No. 2004/4051, Judgment No. 2005/3366, 25 Oct. 2005.