Leyla Sahin vs.
Turkey
International Human Rights Law| November 10, 2005 | Digest by: NTNIII
FACTS:
 Leyla Sahin was a Turkish national born in 1973 to a traditional family of
practicing Muslims, and thus wears the Islamic headscarf. She studied
medicine at the University of Bursa in Turkey and wore the headscarf
during her stay. On August 26, 1997, she enrolled at the Cerrahpasa
Faculty of Medicine at Istanbul University.
 On February 23, 1998, the Vice-Chancellor of Istanbul University issued a
circular, stating that those wearing the Islamic headscarf would not be
admitted to lectures. Sahin was first denied access to a lecture on March
12, 1998. She was denied access in 3 subsequent incidents for the same
reason, and was given a warning by the Dean of the Faculty.
 On February 15, 1999, a protest was held outside the Dean’s office against
the circular. 9 days later, Sahin was among those given disciplinary
proceedings for their involvement in the protest. Finally, on April 13,
1999, after due consideration of her position, the Dean suspended her for
a semester pursuant to disciplinary procedure. Sahin left Turkey 4
months later and enrolled in Vienna University in Austria.
 Before leaving Istanbul, she filed an application with the Istanbul
Administrative Court, requesting an order for the circular to be set aside.
That court dismissed her application, stating that the Vice-Chancellor’s
act was a valid exercise of his duty to maintain order. Subsequently, Sahin
filed an application against the Republic of Turkey with the European
Commission of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms alleging
violation of her rights under the same. She cited Article 9 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, which stated:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship,
teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations
as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others.”
 In June 2004, a Chamber Court of the European Court of Human Rights
found that there was no violation of Article 9. Sahin then requested that
her case be referred to the Grand Chamber, which heard her case in
November of the same year.
ISSUE/S & HELD:
W/N there was a violation of Article 9 of the Convention – NO
RATIO:
 The Court had to consider whether or not Sahin’s rights under Article 9
were interfered with; and if so whether the interference was prescribed
by law, under pursuit of a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a
democratic society within the meaning of Article 9.
 On interference: The Court assumed that the regulations in issue, being a
restriction on wearing the Islamic headscarf, constituted an interference
with Sahin’s right to manifest her religion.
 1.) “Prescribed by Law”: The Court cited Section 17 of Law No. 2547
(1990), which was the basis of the university regulations. Under the same,
it is clear that freedom of dress in higher learning institutions was not an
absolute right. Students are free to dress so long as their choice did not
contravene the laws in force. As a result, the Court held that there was a
legal basis of the interference.
 2.) Legitimate aim: The Court cited various principles held by Turkey and
existing case law to accept that the interference primarily pursued the
legitimate aim of maintaining public order. It held that Turkey has
constitutionalized its secularism in 1937, and had started enforcing
similar dress bans as early as 1925. In fact, the wearing of headscarves in
public only became a phenomenon in the country in the 1980s; a 1991
judgement of Turkey’s Constitutional Court cited the aforementioned
Section 17 of Law No. 2547 to restrict headscarves in said institutions.
 3.) “Necessary in a democratic society”: The Court held that while Article
9 enshrined freedom of thought, conscience and religion as one of the
foundations of a democratic society, not every act motivated by belief is
protected by it. In democratic societies, it may be necessary to place
restrictions on the freedom to manifest one’s beliefs in order to
reconcile the interests of and to accord respect to everyone’s beliefs.
o It is the State that is charged with the duty to determine what
restrictions may be necessary in order to ensure that competing
groups tolerate each other and respect their beliefs. Corollary to
this is the Court’s role to determine if said acts in pursuit of that
tolerance are justified and consistent with the need to protect the
rights and freedoms of all, and to preserve public order.
o The Court held that the circular rested on the twin principles of
secularism and equality embraced by Turkey, and that there
was no reason to depart from the view held by the Chamber
Court on the same matter.
o In establishing the proportionality of the circular, the Court
found that Muslims were not prohibited from manifesting their
beliefs in other ways, and that the dress code limitations were
also in effect for various other religious groups.
In light of the foregoing, the Court held by a sixteen-to-one vote that there was no
violation of Article 9 of the Convention.