The ECtHR and Turkish Secularism

Masmaliyeva, Tarlan

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46011-1_7

Tarlan Masmaliyeva¹⁸

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 12))

29 Accesses

Abstract

Several important questions pertaining to the freedom of religion arising in the context of the principle of secularism have not found a solution within the framework of the Turkish national law and were brought before the European Court of Human Rights under the applicable European Convention provisions. This chapter will study the decisions of the ECtHR concerning the most problematic areas of freedom of religion and belief in Turkey such as the headscarf ban, compulsory religious education, and the non-recognition of the Alevi faith and will analyze their implications for the domestic law. It will assess the ECtHR’s approach towards interaction of the Convention rights and state regulation of the religious sphere in Turkey. The European Court’s varying attitude in employing the doctrine of margin of appreciation in secularism cases will be highlighted throughout the chapter. The chapter will also illuminate the factors inducing the ECtHR to shift its approach in the different freedom of religion cases and preventing it from creating a consistent jurisprudence in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

EUR 32.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See Duvan (2015), p. 60.
2.
Arslan (2005), pp. 23–28.
3.
Karaduman v Turkey (dec), App no 16278/90 (ECmHR, 3 May 1993).
4.
Leyla Şahin v Turkey App no 44774/98 (ECtHR, 29 June 2004) [hereafter Şahin Chamber judgment].
5.
Kurtulmuş v Turkey (dec), App no 65500/01 (ECtHR, 24 January 2006).
6.
Leyla Şahin v Turkey, App no 44774/98 (ECtHR, 10 November 2005), paras. 38–41 [hereafter Şahin Grand Chamber judgment].
7.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 78.
8.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, paras. 40 and 86.
9.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 87.
10.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 88.
11.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 88.
12.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 92.
13.
Karaduman v. Turkey; Dahlab v Switzerland (dec), App no 42393/98 (ECtHR, 15 February 2001).
14.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 111.
15.
Şahin, Chamber judgment, para. 108; Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 115.
16.
Şahin, Chamber judgment, para. 109; Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 115.
17.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 114.
18.
Kokkinakis v Greece App no 14307/88 (ECtHR, 25 May 1993), para. 47.
19.
Kokkinakis v Greece, para. 49.
20.
Altiparmak and Karahanogullari (2006), p. 279.
21.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tulkens in Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 5.
22.
See Smith and Grady v the United Kingdom App nos 33,985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI, para. 8.
23.
See Özenç (2005), p. 117.
24.
See Ulusoy (2004), p. 130.
25.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tulkens in Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 9.
26.
Gündüz v Turkey App no 35071/97 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003).
27.
See Van Drooghenbroeck (2004).
28.
See Gemalmaz (2005), pp. 1299–1303; Çoşkun (2004).
29.
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova App no 45701/99 (ECtHR, 13 December 2001), para. 125.
30.
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova, para. 125.
31.
See Özenç (2005), p. 118.
32.
See Ulusoy (2004), p. 130.
33.
See Altıparmak and Karahanoğulları (2004), pp. 22–23.
34.
See Gemalmaz (2005), pp. 1296–1297.
35.
Serif v Greece App no 38178/97 (ECtHR, 14 December 1999), paras. 51–53; Agga v Greece App nos 50776/99 and 52912/99 (ECtHR, 17 October 2002); Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria App no 30985/96 (ECtHR, 26 October 2000); Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v Bulgaria App no 39023/97 (ECtHR, 16 December 2004).
36.
Refah, Chamber judgment, para. 65.
37.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 116.
38.
Kurtulmuş v Turkey (dec), App no 65500/01 (ECtHR, 24 January 2006), “The Law”.
39.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 114. The condition of an “attitude respecting the principle of secularism” was cited by the ECtHR also in Refah, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 93 and repeated in Dogru v. France App no. 27058/05 (ECtHR, 4 December 2008), para. 72.
40.
See Bribosia and Rorive (2004), p. 958.
41.
Göztepe (2007), pp. 60–63.
42.
Refah, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 125.
43.
See Sağlam (2009), pp. 396–397.
44.
Gunn (2019), pp. 468–469.
45.
Evans (2001), p. 499.
46.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 115.
47.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tulkens in Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 20.
48.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 111.
49.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 111.
50.
BVerfG, 27 January 2015, 1 BvR 471/10, para. 118.
51.
See Poulter (1997), p. 70; Tahzib-Lie (2000), p. 982.
52.
See Van Drooghenbroeck (2004). For the relevant cases see Keenan v the United Kingdom App no 27229/95 (ECtHR, 3 April 2001), para. 92; Pretty v the United Kingdom App no 2346/02 (ECtHR, 29 April 2002), paras. 65–67; Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom App no 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002), para. 90.
53.
See Bribosia and Rorive (2004), p. 962.
54.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 109.
55.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 121.
56.
Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway App no 21980/93 (ECtHR, 20 May 1999), para. 58; see also Cumpana and Mazare v Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), para. 88.
57.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 121.
58.
Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 43.
59.
For the importance of connection between the restriction and the character of the public service rendered or concrete situation, see Tahzib-Lie (2000), p. 983.
60.
Kalaç v Turkey App no 20704/92 (ECtHR, 1 July 1997); Larissis and others v Greece Case no 140/1996/759/958–960 (ECtHR, 24 February 1998); Yanaşık v Turkey App no 14524/89 (ECmHR, 6 January 1993); Ramazan Akbulut v Turkey App no 45624/99 (ECtHR, 6 February 2003); Helmi Başpınar v Turkey App no 45631/99 (ECtHR, 3 October 2002); Sedat Şen and others v Turkey App no 45824/99 (ECtHR, 8 July 2003).
61.
For example, in Başpınar case, although it was openly stated by the government that one of the grounds for finding the applicant as undisciplined by the Supreme Military Council was his wife’s wearing the headscarf, the ECtHR asserted that his expulsion from the employment was not based on his or his wife’s religious views. For other related cases see: Tepeli and others v Turkey App no 31876/96 (ECtHR, 11 September 2001); Acarca v Turkey App no 45823/99 (ECtHR, 3 October 2002); Osman Balcı v Turkey App no 48718/99 (ECtHR, 3 October 2002); Ziya Çelikateş and Others v Turkey App no 45824/99 (ECtHR, 3 October 2002).
62.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tulkens in Şahin, Grand Chamber judgment, para. 3.
63.
The views of the President are expressed in his Veto concerning Law No. 5227 on Basic Principles and Restructuring of Public Administration, No. B.01.0.KKB.01-18/A-9-2004-890, 3 August 2004.
64.
Düzel (2004); see also Jenkins (2007).
65.
See Ulusoy (2004), p. 133.
66.
Berkes (1998), p. 477.
67.
Kaymakcan (2006), p. 23.
68.
Merter and Kartal (2014), p. 2.
69.
Öcal (2017), p. 408.
70.
Milli Eğitim Temel Kanunu [Basic Law on National Education], No. 1739, 14 June 1973, Official Gazette, 24 June 1973, No. 14574, Art. 12.
71.
See Gözler (2010).
72.
Acar (2006), https://katalog.marmara.edu.tr/veriler/yordambt/cokluortam/D/A/E/D/A/T0053097.pdf, p. 12. See also Akyüz (1999), p. 306.
73.
Decision of the Board of Education and Discipline, No. 30, 18 February 1982, Ministry of National Education, Tebliğler Dergisi [The Journal of Announcements], 29 March 1982, No. 2109, p. 155.
74.
Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923. The official English version of the Treaty of Lausanne can be found at the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/lausanne-peace-treaty.en.mfa.
75.
See Yildiz (2007), pp. 802–803; Özgül (2019), p. 107.
76.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 10 February 1987, E. 1986/518, K. 1987/54.
77.
Özenç (2005), pp. 123–124.
78.
Decision of the Supreme Council of Education, No. 1, 9 July 1990, Ministry of National Education, Tebliğler Dergisi [The Journal of Announcements], 23 July 1990, No. 2317, p. 553.
79.
See Şirin et al. (2016), pp. 37–38; see also (2010) “A Threat” or Under Threat?: Legal and Social Problems of Protestants in Turkey, 2010. Association of Protestant Churches. https://www.ceceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Protestants_in_Turkey-_A_Threat_or_Under_Threat_2010__.pdf, pp. 28–29.
80.
See Özgül (2019), p. 109.
81.
Altıparmak (2005).
82.
Altıparmak (2005).
83.
See Özenç (2005), p. 169; Çınar (2013), pp. 229–230; Şirin (2015); Şirin et al. (2016), p. 39.
84.
Eroğul (2015), pp. 188–189.
85.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 28 December 2007, E. 2006/4107, K. 2007/7481.
86.
See Gözler (2010); Altıparmak (2013), p. 12; Erdoğan (2019).
87.
Gözler (2010).
88.
Gözler (2010) (citing Rey and Rey-Debove 1991).
89.
Gözler (2010).
90.
See Erdoğan (2010).
91.
Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı’nın Kuruluşu ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun [Law on Organization and Duties of the Presidency of Religious Affairs], No. 633, 22 June 1965, Official Gazette, 02 July 1965, No. 12038, Art. 7(b)(1).
92.
Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı’nın Kuruluşu ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun [Law on Organization and Duties of the Presidency of Religious Affairs], Art. 7(b)(1), (author’s own translation).
93.
See Demir (2011), p. 154.
94.
See Temperman (2019), pp. 182–183; for relevant cases, see Folgerø and others v Norway App no 15472/02 (ECtHR, 29 June 2007), para. 54; Lautsi and Others v Italy App no 30814/06 (ECtHR, 18 March 2011), para. 59.
95.
Saniewski v Poland App no 40319/98 (ECtHR, 26 June 2001), “The Law”.
96.
Folgerø and others v Norway, para. 102.
97.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v Turkey App no 1448/04 (ECtHR, 9 October 2007).
98.
İzzettin Doğan and Others v Turkey [GC], App no 62649/10 (ECtHR, 26 April 2016), para. 35.
99.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, paras. 8–9.
100.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) (2019), p. 217.
101.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 10.
102.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 13.
103.
The syllabus for religious culture and ethics lessons in primary and secondary schools was adopted by the MNE Decision of 19 September 2000, No. 373 and was published in Tebliğler Dergisi [The Journal of Announcements], October 2000, No. 2517. This syllabus was replaced by a new one which was put into practice for the study year of 2005–2006.
104.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 36.
105.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 40.
106.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 44.
107.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 41.
108.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 43.
109.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 42.
110.
See Özenç (2011), p. 211.
111.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 59.
112.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 63.
113.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 60.
114.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 61.
115.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 62.
116.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 63.
117.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 67.
118.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 68.
119.
See Özenç (2011), p. 212.
120.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 71.
121.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 72.
122.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 73.
123.
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2005), para. 68.
124.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 75.
125.
UN HRC, CCPR General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, 30 July 1993, para. 6 [hereafter CCPR General Comment No. 22].
126.
CCPR General Comment No. 22, para. 6; see also Erkki Hartikainen v Finland Communication No. 40/1978, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 74 (1984).
127.
ODIHR Advisory Council of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief (2007), p. 69 [hereafter Toledo Guiding Principles].
128.
ODIHR Advisory Council of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief (2007), p. 70.
129.
Gözler (2010).
130.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, para. 67.
131.
Gözler (2010).
132.
Özenç (2011) p. 212.
133.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, paras. 52 and 69.
134.
Leigh (2012), p. 198.
135.
PACE (2005), para. 8 [hereafter PACE Recommendation 1720 (2005)].
136.
PACE Recommendation 1720 (2005), para. 14.4.
137.
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, paras. 68–70.
138.
CCPR General Comment No. 22, para. 6.
139.
See Altıparmak (2013), pp. 3–4.
140.
Altıparmak (2013), p. 3.
141.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 28 December 2007, E. 2006/4107, K. 2007/7481.
142.
Turkish Constitutional Court decision, 16 September 1998, E. 1997/62, K. 1998/52.
143.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 29 February 2008, E. 2007/679, K. 2008/1461; Council of State (8. Chamber), 15 May 2009, E. 2007/8365, K. 2009/3238.
144.
See (2012) Norway Goes Secular, Removes Lutheran Church as State Religion. In: Nationalpost. https://nationalpost.com/holy-post/norway-goes-secular-removes-lutheran-church-as-state-religion; see also Wood (2017) Norway’s Separation of Church and State: A Work in Progress. In: National Secular Society. https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/01/norways-separation-of-church-and-state-a-work-in-progress.
145.
See Özenç (2011), p. 218.
146.
See Özenç (2011), p. 218.
147.
See Gözler (2009)..
148.
See Şirin et al. (2016), p. 46.
149.
Altıparmak (2013), pp. 8–9.
150.
Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education - Strategy Development Department, Letter No. B.08.0.SGB.0.20.02.00/337 of 17 January 2012 on the Parliamentary Question to the Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. http://www.aihmiz.org.tr/aktarimlar/dosyalar/1349594746.pdf.
151.
(2018) Zorunlu din dersi anayasal gereklilik [Compulsory religion class is a constitutional requirement]. In: CNN Türk. https://www.cnnturk.com/2012/turkiye/12/22/zorunlu.din.dersi.anayasal.gereklilik/689702.0/index.html.
152.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 13 July 2010, E. 2009/10610, K. 2010/2413.
153.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 29 November 2011, E. 2011/5904, K. 2011/6141; Council of State (8. Chamber), 23 May 2012, E. 2012/2599, K. 2012/3401; Council of State (8. Chamber), 8 June 2012, E. 2010/8381, K. 2012/4640.
154.
See Çınar (2013), p. 236; Altıparmak (2013), p. 15.
155.
See (2014) Open Letter to Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu from the Norwegian Helsinki Committee / Freedom of Belief Initiative. https://inancozgurlugugirisimi.org/en/open-letter-to-prime-minister-ahmet-davutoglu-from-the-norwegian-helsinki-committee-freedom-of-belief-initiative/.
156.
Mansur Yalçın and others v Turkey App no 21163/11 (ECtHR, 16 September 2014).
157.
Mansur Yalçın and others v Turkey, para. 7.
158.
Mansur Yalçın and others v Turkey, para. 55.
159.
Mansur Yalçın and others v Turkey, para. 68.
160.
Mansur Yalçın and others v Turkey, para. 68.
161.
Mansur Yalçın and others v Turkey, para. 84.
162.
Council of State (8. Chamber), 11 November 2014, E. 2014/8515, K. 2014/8417.
163.
Istanbul 9. Administrative Court, 26 October 2017, E. 2016/95, K. 2016/1521; Istanbul 2. Administrative Court, 20 April 2017, E. 2016/1587, K. 2017/974; Istanbul 4. Administrative Court, 31 May 2017, E. 2017/57, K. 2017/1233; Antalya 4. Administrative Court, 18 November 2016, E. 2015/804, K. 2016/1133; Konya 3. Administrative Court, 20 June 2017, E. 2017/210, K. 2017/622; Antalya 3. Administrative Court, 12 July 2017, E. 2016/1434, K. 2017/1004; see also (2016) Mahkemeden flaş zorunlu din dersi kararı [Flash decision from the Court about compulsory religion class]. In: Hürriyet. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/mahkemeden-flas-zorunlu-din-dersi-karari-40070601.
164.
See Akbulut and Usal (2008); Özenç (2011); Gözler (2010); Altıparmak (2013); Sağlam (2013), pp. 325–326; Doğru and Nalbant (2013), p. 738; Çınar (2014), pp. 185–207; Özbudun (2014), p. 81; Şirin et al. (2016), p. 35; Tanör and Yüzbaşıoğlu (2014), pp. 172–174; Kaboğlu (2016), p. 296.
165.
Şirin et al. (2016), p. 43.
166.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, Art. 14.
167.
See Altıparmak (2013), p. 17; Şirin et al. (2016), p. 144.
168.
Kap (2014), p. 61.
169.
Özbudun (2014), p. 81; Gören (2015), p. 519.
170.
Grzelak v Poland App no 7710/02 (ECtHR, 15 June 2010).
171.
Şirin (2016), p. 33.
172.
See for example, Norwegian Helsinki Committee Freedom of Belief Initiative (2019), p. 38 [hereafter 2019 Report Pursuing Rights and Equality].
173.
Erdoğan and Yazıcı (2011), p. 20.
174.
See Erdoğan (2010); see also Erdoğan and Yazıcı (2011), p. 20.
175.
See Erdoğan (2010).
176.
See Erdoğan (2010).
177.
Erdoğan and Yazıcı (2011), p. 20.
178.
Demir (2018), pp. 54–63.
179.
Demir (2018), pp. 60–61.
180.
2019 Report Pursuing Rights and Equality, p. 38.
181.
(2019) Zorunlu din dersi için kritik karar [Critical decision for the compulsory religion class]. In: Odatv4. https://odatv4.com/zorunlu-din-dersi-icin-kritik-karar-01021955.html.
182.
See (2019) Zorunlu din dersinde aynı yalan: Müfredatımız çoğulcu [The same lie in the compulsory religion class: Our syllabus is pluralist]. In: soL. https://haber.sol.org.tr/toplum/zorunlu-din-dersinde-ayni-yalan-mufredatimiz-cogulcu-270968.
183.
Sinan Işık v Turkey App no 21924/05 (ECtHR, 2 February 2010); Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı v Turkey App no 32093/10 (ECtHR, 2 December 2014).
184.
Sinan Işık v Turkey, para. 9.
185.
Sinan Işık v Turkey, para. 60.
186.
Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı v Turkey, para. 33.
187.
Law No. 6446 on Electricity Market, 14 March 2013, Official Gazette, 30 March 2013, No. 28603 (author’s own translation).
188.
Cited in Aydin and Gurpinar (2022), p. 8.
189.
Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı v Turkey, para. 45.
190.
Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı v Turkey, para. 52.
191.
(2016) Rıza Türmen’in Sunumu [Presentation of Rıza Türmen]. Conference on the ECtHR Judgment: Religious Freedoms in Turkey, Istanbul, 8 May 2016. https://tqsweb.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/05/25/13/12/18/60ffbdce-4ad6-4349-9b0f-6c2a324665d0/aihm-cemevi.pdf, pp. 17–18.
192.
See Türmen (2016).
193.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 10.
194.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 79.
195.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 88.
196.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 80.
197.
İzzettin Doğan, paras. 80–81.
198.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 84. Article 1 of Law no. 677 reads as follows: “Throughout the territories of the Turkish Republic, all tekkes and zaviyes (Dervish monasteries) established either as a foundation, or as the property of a sheikh or in any other way, shall be completely closed, subject to the owner’s right of possession. Those which are still being used as mosques or prayer rooms in accordance with the statutory procedure shall remain operational.
In particular, the use of certain religious titles such as Seyhlik, Dervichlik, Muritlik, Dedelik, Seyitlik, Celebilik, Babalık … shall be prohibited. Throughout the territories of the Republic of Turkey, tombs belonging … to a Sufi order (tarika) or used for purposes of interest, and other tombs, shall be closed … Anyone who opens tekkes and zaviyes or tombs and begins carrying on these activities again, or anyone who provides religious premises, even temporarily, for Sufi practices and rituals, and who bears one of the above-mentioned titles or carries on the associated activities, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of three months and to a fine …” (cited in İzzettin Doğan, para. 52).
199.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 92.
200.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 92.
201.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 93.
202.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 93.
203.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 95.
204.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 107.
205.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 117.
206.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 121.
207.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 126.
208.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 127.
209.
İzzettin Doğan, paras. 128–131.
210.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 134.
211.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 133.
212.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 156.
213.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 167.
214.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 168.
215.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 171.
216.
For other prior remarks about the Diyanet see for example, Ahmet Arslan and Others v Turkey App no 41135/98 (ECtHR, 23 February 2010), paras. 12 and 51; Köse and Others v. Turkey (dec) App no 26625/02 (ECtHR, 24 January 2006), “The Facts”; Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey App no 3976/05 (ECtHR, 2 November 2010), paras. 40 and 84; Freedom and Democracy Party (ŐZDEP) v Turkey App no 23885/94 (ECtHR, 8 December 1999), para. 14.
217.
İzzettin Doğan, paras. 17–28.
218.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 25.
219.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 25.
220.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 172.
221.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 175.
222.
İzzettin Doğan, paras. 180 and 184.
223.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 181.
224.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 178.
225.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 182.
226.
For the general overview of the position of other religions see İzzettin Doğan, paras. 29–34.
227.
Venice Commission (2010).
228.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 182.
229.
İzzettin Doğan, para. 183.
230.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2018), para. 15.
231.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2018).
232.
Karaca (2015)
233.
(2014) Yargıtay: Cemevi Yaptırmak İçin Dernek Kurulabilir [The Court of Cassation: An Association Can Be Established for the Construction of the Cemevi]. In: Haberturk. https://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/1015418-yargitay-cemevi-yaptirmak-icin-dernek-kurulabilir; (2014) Top Court: It’s Not Judiciary’s Call to Designate Cemevi as Place of Worship or Not. In: Hurriyetdailynews. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/top-court-its-not-judiciarys-call-to-designate-cemevi-as-place-of-worship-or-not-75151.
234.
(2014) Yargıtay: Cemevi Yaptırmak İçin Dernek Kurulabilir [The Court of Cassation: An Association Can Be Established for the Construction of the Cemevi].
235.
(2012) Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi: Cami Dışında Ibadethane Olmaz [7th Chamber of the Court of Cassation: There Can Be No Place of Worship other than the Mosque]. In: Yeniasya. https://www.yeniasya.com.tr/gundem/yargitay-7-hukuk-dairesi-cami-disinda-ibadethane-olmaz_139593.
236.
(2014) Yargıtay: Cemevi Yaptırmak İçin Dernek Kurulabilir [The Court of Cassation: An Association Can Be Established for the Construction of the Cemevi] (author’s own translation).
237.
Court of Cassation (third Civil Chamber), 28 May 2015, E. 2014/11238, K. 2015/9711.
238.
Court of Cassation (third Civil Chamber), 28 May 2015, E. 2014/11238, K. 2015/9711.
239.
Erenler Eğitim ve Kültür Vakfı’ndan Açıklama [Statement from the Erenler Foundation for the Education and Culture]. In: Serhatbirikim. http://www.serhatbirikim.com.tr/haber-erenler-egitim-ve-kultur-vakfi-ndan-aciklama-7952.html.
240.
Akıl (2019), pp. 21–22.
241.
Akıl (2019), p. 22 (author’s own translation).
242.
See Yanardağ (2012).
243.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021a).
244.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021b) [hereafter Action Plan (05/10/2021) - Communication from Turkey Concerning the Group of Cases Zengin v. Turkey].
245.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021b) Action Plan (05/10/2021) - Communication from Turkey Concerning the Group of Cases Zengin v. Turkey, paras. 16–17.
246.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021b) Action Plan (05/10/2021) - Communication from Turkey Concerning the Group of Cases Zengin v. Turkey, para. 44.
247.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021b) Action Plan (05/10/2021) - Communication from Turkey Concerning the Group of Cases Zengin v. Turkey, para. 45.
248.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021c), para. 4 [hereafter Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021) H46-36 Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı].
249.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021c) H46-36 Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı, para. 4.
250.
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkey (2021).
251.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021c) H46-36 Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı, para. 7.
252.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021c) H46-36 Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı, para. 8.
253.
(2022) Turkish Parliament Approves Crucial Law for Alevi Citizens. In: Daily Sabah. https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/legislation/turkish-parliament-approves-crucial-law-for-alevi-citizens.
254.
Cited in Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023), para. 30 [hereafter Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey].
255.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey, para. 31.
256.
Cited in Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey [2023], para. 33.
257.
Cited in Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey [2023], para. 34.
258.
(2022) Turkish Parliament Approves Crucial Law for Alevi Citizens.
259.
Cited in Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey [2023], para. 35.
260.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey, para. 36.
261.
(2022) Türkiye Establishes Cemevi Presidency to Address Alevi Citizens’ Problems. In: Daily Sabah. https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/legislation/turkiye-establishes-cemevi-presidency-to-address-alevi-citizens-problems.
262.
(2022) Türkiye Establishes Cemevi Presidency to Address Alevi Citizens’ Problems.
263.
(2020) CHP Muğla Milletvekili Mürsel Alban’dan Cemevleri Için Kanun Teklifi [A Legislative Proposal from the CHP Muğla Deputy Mürsel Alban]. In: Cumhuriyyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/chp-mugla-milletvekili-mursel-albanda-cemevleri-icin-kanun-teklifi-1715697.
264.
(2020) AKP, MHP Councillors Vote down Proposal to Recognize Cemevis as Places of Worship. In: Duvar English. https://www.duvarenglish.com/human-rights/2020/01/16/istanbul-municipality-to-vote-on-approving-status-of-cemevis-as-places-of-worship.
265.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Action Plan (29/03/2023) - Communication from Türkiye Concerning the Case of ZENGIN v. Turkey, para. 38.
266.
İzzettin Doğan, paras. 96–97.
267.
Ferri (2017).
268.
Joint Partly Dissenting and Partly Concurring Opinion of Judges Villiger, Keller and Kjølbro in İzzettin Doğan, paras. 10 and 13.
269.
See Yildirim (2016); for the consequences of the non-recognition of the places of worship, see (2017) The Right to Have Places of Worship - a Trapped Right. In: International Institute for Religious Freedom. https://www.iirf.eu/news/archiv/the-right-to-have-places-of-worship-a-trapped-right/.
270.
See (2016) Rıza Türmen’in Sunumu [Presentation of Rıza Türmen], p. 23.
271.
Gozaydin and Ozturk (2014), p. 19; see also Gözaydın (2015).
272.
See Mutluer (2018), e.g., pp. 3, 14.
273.
See (2016) Rıza Türmen’in Sunumu [Presentation of Rıza Türmen].
274.
These cases such as Leyla Şahin and Kurtulmuş are classified by Jeremy Gunn as “Phase 1” cases. See Gunn (2019), pp. 516–521.
275.
Gunn (2019), p. 521.

References

(2010) “A threat” or under threat?: legal and social problems of protestants in Turkey, 2010. Association of Protestant Churches. https://www.ceceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Protestants_in_Turkey-_A_Threat_or_Under_Threat_2010__.pdf
(2012) Norway goes secular, removes Lutheran Church as state religion. In: nationalpost. https://nationalpost.com/holy-post/norway-goes-secular-removes-lutheran-church-as-state-religion
(2012) YARGITAY 7. HUKUK DAİRESİ: Cami dışında ibadethane olmaz [There can be no Place of Worship except the Mosque]. In: Yeniasya. https://www.yeniasya.com.tr/gundem/yargitay-7-hukuk-dairesi-cami-disinda-ibadethane-olmaz_139593
(2014) Yargıtay: Cemevi Yaptırmak İçin Dernek Kurulabilir [The court of cassation: the association can be established for the construction of the Cemevi]. In: Haberler. https://www.haberler.com/guncel/yargitay-cemevi-yaptirmak-icin-dernek-kurulabilir-6742961-haberi/?m=0
(2014) Top court: It’s not judiciary’s call to designate cemevi as place of worship or not. In: Hurriyetdailynews. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/top-court-its-not-judiciarys-call-to-designate-cemevi-as-place-of-worship-or-not-75151
(2016) Rıza Türmen’in Sunumu [Presentation of Rıza Türmen]. Conference on the ECtHR Judgment: religious freedoms in Turkey, Istanbul, 8 May 2016. https://tqsweb.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/05/25/13/12/18/60ffbdce-4ad6-4349-9b0f-6c2a324665d0/aihm-cemevi.pdf
(2017) The right to have places of worship - a trapped right. In: International Institute for Religious Freedom. https://www.iirf.eu/news/archiv/the-right-to-have-places-of-worship-a-trapped-right/
(2018) Zorunlu din dersi anayasal gereklilik [Compulsory religion class is a constitutional requirement]. In: CNN Türk. https://www.cnnturk.com/2012/turkiye/12/22/zorunlu.din.dersi.anayasal.gereklilik/689702.0/index.html
(2019) Zorunlu din dersi için kritik karar [Critical decision for the compulsory religion class]. In: Odatv4. https://odatv4.com/zorunlu-din-dersi-icin-kritik-karar-01021955.html
(2019) Zorunlu din dersinde aynı yalan: Müfredatımız çoğulcu [The same lie in the compulsory religion class: Our syllabus is pluralist]. In: soL. https://haber.sol.org.tr/toplum/zorunlu-din-dersinde-ayni-yalan-mufredatimiz-cogulcu-270968
(2020) CHP Muğla Milletvekili Mürsel Alban’dan cemevleri için kanun teklifi [A legislative proposal from the CHP Muğla Deputy Mürsel Alban]. In: Cumhuriyyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/chp-mugla-milletvekili-mursel-albanda-cemevleri-icin-kanun-teklifi-1715697
(2020) AKP, MHP councillors vote down proposal to recognize cemevis as places of worship. In: Duvar English. https://www.duvarenglish.com/human-rights/2020/01/16/istanbul-municipality-to-vote-on-approving-status-of-cemevis-as-places-of-worship
(2022) Turkish Parliament approves crucial law for Alevi citizens. In: Daily Sabah. https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/legislation/turkish-parliament-approves-crucial-law-for-alevi-citizens
(2022) Türkiye establishes Cemevi Presidency to address Alevi citizens’ problems. In: Daily Sabah. https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/legislation/turkiye-establishes-cemevi-presidency-to-address-alevi-citizens-problems
Acar A (2006) İlköğretim 4. ve 5. Sınıf Din Kültürü Ve Ahlak Bilgisi Öğretimi Dersi Müfredatlarının Mukayesesi (1949-2000) [The comparison of the syllabus of the classes in religious culture and ethics for the 4th and 5th grades of primary schools (1949-2000)]. Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, Social Sciences Institute
Google Scholar
Akbulut O, Usal ZO (2008) Parental religious rights vs. compulsory religious education in Turkey. Int J Minor Group Rights 15:433–455. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181108X374752
Article Google Scholar
Akıl A (2019) İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi İçtihadında İnanç Hürriyeti ve Tezahürlerinin Sınırlandırılması [Religious liberty and limitation of its expression under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights]. İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 6:5–32
Google Scholar
Akyüz Y (1999) Türk Eğitim Tarihi [History of Turkish education], 7th edn. Alfa, İstanbul
Google Scholar
Altiparmak K, Karahanogullari O (2006) 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. Eur Const Law Rev 2:268–292
Google Scholar
Altıparmak K (2005) Zorunlu din dersi gerçekten zorunlu mu? [Is the compulsory religion class really compulsory?]. In: Radikal. http://www.radikal.com.tr/radikal2/zorunlu_din_dersi_gercekten_zorunlu_mu-872303/
Altıparmak K (2013) Hasan ve Eylem Zengin/Türkiye Kararının Uygulanması—İzleme Raporu [Implementation of the Judgment of Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey - The Monitoring Report]. İnsan Hakları Ortak Platformu (İHOP). http://www.aihmiz.org.tr/files/01_Hasan_ve_Eylem_Zengin_Rapor_TR.pdf
Google Scholar
Altıparmak K, Karahanoğulları O (2004) Pyrrhus Zaferi: Leyla Şahin/Türkiye, AİHM/Hukuk, Düzenleyici İşlem/Kanun [Pyrrhic Victory: Leyla Şahin v.Turkey, European Court of Human Rights v. Law, Regulatory Measure v. Law]. Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi 1:249–275
Google Scholar
Arslan Z (2005) Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde Din Özgürlüğü [Freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights]. Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu. https://docplayer.biz.tr/30500605-Avrupa-insan-haklari-sozlesmesi-nde-din-ozgurlugu-zuhtu-arslan.html
Google Scholar
Aydin O, Gurpinar B (2022) the right to have places of worship: the Cemevi Case in Turkey. Religions 13:1–14
Article Google Scholar
Berkes N (1998) The development of secularism in Turkey. Routledge, New York
Google Scholar
Bribosia E, Rorive I (2004) Le voile à l’école: une Europe divisée [The veil at school: a divided Europe]. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 15:951–984
Google Scholar
Çınar Ö (2013) Compulsory religious education in Turkey. Relig Hum Rights 8:223–241. https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341253
Article Google Scholar
Çınar ÖH (2014) An unsolved issue: religous education in international human rights law and the case of Turkey. In: Çınar ÖH, Yıldırım M (eds) Freedom of religion and belief in Turkey, Unabridged edn. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne
Google Scholar
Committee of Ministers (2018) Resolution on the Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Sinan Işık against Turkey. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-184029%22]}
Çoşkun V (2004) AİHM Meşruiyetini Tehlikeye Attı! [The ECtHR has jeopardized its own legitimacy!]. In: HAKSÖZ OKULU. https://www.haksozhaber.net/okul/aihm-mesruiyetini-tehlikeye-atti-4084yy.htm
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2018) Action report (12/04/2018) - communication from Turkey Concerning the Case of SINAN ISIK v. Turkey (Application No. 21924/05). https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016807bb98c
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021a) Communication from NGOs (Norwegian Helsinki Committee and İnanç Özgürlüğü Girişimi (Freedom of Belief (Initiative)) (11/10/2021) in the cases of ZENGIN, MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI and IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Applications No. 1448/04, 21163/11, 32093/10, 62649/10). https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22DH-DD(2021)1078E%22]}
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021b) Action plan (05/10/2021) - communication from Turkey Concerning the Group of Cases Zengin v. Turkey (Application No. 1448/04), Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey (Application No. 62649/10), Mansur Yalcin v. Turkey (Application No. 21163/11) and Cumhuriyetci Egitim Ve Kultur Merkezi Vakfi v. Turkey (Application No. 32093/10). https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680a416dc#globalcontainer
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021c) H46-36 Cumhuriyetçi Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı (Application No. 32093/10), İzzettin Doğan and Others (Application No. 62649/10) and Hasan and Eylem Zengin group (Application No. 1448/04) v. Turkey. https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-36E%22]}
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2023) Communication from Türkiye concerning the case of ZENGIN v. Turkey, CUMHURIYETCI EGITIM VE KULTUR MERKEZI VAKFI v. Turkey, MANSUR YALCIN AND OTHERS v. Turkey and IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey (Application Nos 1448/04, 32093/10, 21163/11 and 62649/10). https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22DH-DD(2023)407E%22]}
Demir HS (2011) Türkiye’de Din ve Vicdan Özgürlüğü [The freedom of religion and conscience in Turkey]. Adalet, Ankara
Google Scholar
Demir Ö (2018) Laiklik İlkesi Bağlamında Türkiye’de Zorunlu Din Dersi ve Muafiyet Sistemi [Compulsory religion class and the exemption system in the context of the principle of secularism in Turkey]. Master’s thesis, Istanbul Bilgi University
Google Scholar
DHA A (2016) Mahkemeden flaş zorunlu din dersi kararı [Flash decision from the Court about compulsory religion class]. In: Hürriyet. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/mahkemeden-flas-zorunlu-din-dersi-karari-40070601
Doğru O, Nalbant A (2013) İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi: Açıklama ve Önemli Kararlar [The European Convention on Human Rights: commentary and the important judgments]. Legal, İstanbul
Google Scholar
Duvan AÖ (2015) The judicial application of human rights law in Turkey. J Penal Law Criminol 3:59–73
Google Scholar
Düzel N (2004) Türbanın Şansı Yok [Headscarf has no chance] - Interview with Erdoğan Teziç. In: Radikal. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/turbanin_sansi_yok-717777/
Erdoğan M (2019) Din Dayatma İlkelliğinden Vazgeçmek [Abandoning the primitiveness of imposing religion]. In: Mustafa Erdoğan. http://erdoganmustafa.org/din-dayatma-ilkelliginden-vazgecmek/
Erdoğan M (2010) Zorunlu din dersi, çoğulculuk ve tarafsızlık [The compulsory religion class, pluralism and impartiality]. In: Hür Fikirler. http://www.hurfikirler.com/zorunlu-din-dersi-cogulculuk-ve-tarafsizlik/
Erdoğan M, Yazıcı S (2011) Report of the TESEV Commission on Constitution: towards Turkey’s New Constitution. TESEV Publications. https://www.tesev.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/report_Towards_Turkeys_New_Constitution.pdf
Google Scholar
Erenler Eğitim. ve Kültür Vakfı’ndan açıklama [Statement from the Erenler Foundation for the Education and Culture]. In: Serhatbirikim. http://www.serhatbirikim.com.tr/haber-erenler-egitim-ve-kultur-vakfi-ndan-aciklama-7952.html
Eroğul C (2015) Öznel Bir Hak Olarak Laiklik [Secularism as a subjective right]. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 46:183–190
Google Scholar
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2005) Third report on Turkey, Adopted on 25 June 2004. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/third-report-on-turkey/16808b5c7b
Evans C (2001) Freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Ferri M (2017) The Dogan et al. v. Turkey Case: a missed opportunity to recognise positive obligations as regards the freedom of religion. Eur Pap J Law Integr 2:311–319. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/117
Article Google Scholar
Gemalmaz MS (2005) Türk Kıyafet Hukuku ve Türban [Turkish dress law and headscarf]. Legal Yayıncılık, İstanbul
Google Scholar
Gören Z (2015) Anayasa Hukuku [Constitutional law]. Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara
Google Scholar
Gozaydin I, Ozturk AE (2014) The Management of Religion in Turkey. Turkey Institute. https://www.turkeyinstitute.org.uk/assets/docs/The-Management-of-Religion-in-Turkey.pdf
Google Scholar
Gözaydın İ (2015) AKP ve Diyanet [The AKP and Diyanet]. In: Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/olaylar-ve-gorusler/akp-ve-diyanet-242033
Gözler K (2010) 1982 Anayasasına Göre Din Eğitimi ve Öğretimi [Religious education and instruction under the 1982 constitution]. In: Türk Anayasa Hukuku Sitesi. https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/din-egitimi.htm#_ftn1
Gözler K (2009) Kamu Hizmetlerinde Laiklik İlkesi [The principle of laicism in public services]. In: Türk İdare Hukuku Sitesi. https://www.idare.gen.tr/laiklik.htm
Göztepe E (2007) Das Kopftuchverbot: Die letzte Bastion des türkischen Laizismus. In: Oebbecke J, Kalisch MS, Towfigh E (eds) Die Stellung der Frau im islamischen Religionsunterricht. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Gunn TJ (2019) The “principle of secularism” and the European Court of Human Rights: a shell game. In: Temperman J, Gunn TJ, Evans MD (eds) The European Court of Human Rights and the freedom of religion or belief. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 465–573
Chapter Google Scholar
Jenkins G (2007) Turkish government and secular establishment face off over headscarf ban. In: The Jamestown. https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-government-and-secular-establishment-face-off-over-headscarf-ban/
Kaboğlu İ (2016) Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri: Genel Esaslar [Lessons of constitutional law: general principles]. Legal, İstanbul
Google Scholar
Kap D (2014) Türkiye’de Zorunlu Din Dersi Uygulaması [Implementation of compulsory religious education in Turkey]. Akademik Perspektif November:58–61
Google Scholar
Karaca E (2015) Ağbaba: 100 Civarı Belediye Cemevlerine İbadethane Statüsü Verdi [Ağbaba: nearly 100 municipalities have given the status of place of worship to the Cemevis]. In: Bianet. https://m.bianet.org/bianet/ifade-ozgurlugu/162094-agbaba-100-civari-belediye-cemevlerine-ibadethane-statusu-verdi
Kaymakcan R (2006) Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi Politikaları Üzerine Düşünceler [The thoughts on the religious education policies in Turkey]. Ekev Akademi Dergisi 10:21–36
Google Scholar
Leigh I (2012) Objective, critical and pluralistic? Religious education and human rights in the European Public Sphere. In: Zucca L, Ungureanu C (eds) Law, state and religion in the new Europe: debates and dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Merter F, Kartal Ş (2014) 1967’den Günümüze Lise Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi Dersleri Öğretim Programlarında Atatürkçülük ve Türk Kültürü Konuları [The Subjects related to Kemalism and Turkish culture included in high school curricula of religious culture and ethics courses since 1967]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1:1–26
Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkey (2021) Action plan on human rights. https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/1262021081047Action_Plan_On_Human_Rights.pdf
Mutluer N (2018) Diyanet’s role in building the ‘Yeni (New) Milli’ in the AKP Era. Eur J Turk Stud 27:1–24. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.5953
Article Google Scholar
Norwegian Helsinki Committee Freedom of Belief Initiative (2019) Pursuing rights and equality: monitoring report on the right to freedom of religion or belief in Turkey. https://inancozgurlugugirisimi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Report_Turkey_ENG_web.pdf
Öcal M (2017) Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi [Religious education in Turkey from the ottoman time to the present]. Dergah Yayınları, İstanbul
Google Scholar
ODIHR Advisory Council of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief (2007) Toledo guiding principles on teaching about religions and beliefs in public schools. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/e/29154.pdf
Özbudun E (2014) Türk Anayasa Hukuku [Turkish constitutional law]. Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara
Google Scholar
Özenç B (2005) Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve İnanç Özgürlüğü [The European Convention on Human Rights and Freedom of Belief]. Kitap Yayınevi, İstanbul
Google Scholar
Özenç B (2011) AİHM ve Danıştay Kararlarının Ardından Zorunlu Din Dersleri Sorunu [The problem of compulsory religion classes after the decisions of the ECtHR and the council of state]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 66:191–226
Google Scholar
Özgül C (2019) Freedom of religion, the ECtHR and grassroots mobilization on religious education in Turkey. Polit Relig 12:S103–S133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048318000779
Article Google Scholar
PACE (2005) Recommendation 1720 (2005) on education and religion PACE (2005). http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17373
Poulter S (1997) Muslim headscarves in school: contrasting legal approaches in England and France. Oxf J Leg Stud 17:43–74
Article Google Scholar
Sağlam F (2009) Laiklik İlkesine Bağlı Güncel Anayasal Sorunlar [Current constitutional issues regarding the principle of secularism]. In: Eroğul C (ed) Mümtaz Soysal’a Armağan [Festschrift for Mümtaz Soysal]. Mülkiyeliler Birliği Vakfı. Kızılay, Ankara
Google Scholar
Sağlam F (2013) Anayasa Hukuku Ders Notları [Constitutional law lecture notes]. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi, Lefkoşa
Google Scholar
Şirin T (2015) Zorunlu Din Dersi Tartışmasının Görünmeyenleri [The unseen points of the debate on the compulsory religion class]. Güncel Hukuk Dergisi
Google Scholar
Şirin T (2016) Türkiye’de Zorunlu Din Eğitimi Sorunu [The problem of compulsory religious education in Turkey]. https://www.academia.edu/28867575/Zorunlu_Din_Dersi_Helsinki_Yurtta%C5%9Flar_Giri%C5%9Fimi_Ekim_docx
Şirin T, Duymaz E, Yıldız D (2016) Türkiye’de Din ve Vicdan Özgürlüğü: Sorunlar, Tespitler ve Çözüm Önerileri [The freedom of religion and conscience in Turkey: problems, findings and solutions]. Türkiye Barolar Birliği, Ankara
Google Scholar
Tahzib-Lie B (2000) Applying gender perspective in the area of the right to freedom of religion or belief. BYU Law Rev 2000:967–988
Google Scholar
Tanör B, Yüzbaşıoğlu N (2014) 1982 Anayasasına Göre Türk Anayasa Hukuku [Turkish Constitutional Law according to the 1982 constitution]. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul
Google Scholar
Temperman J (2019) Education and freedom of religion or belief under the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol No. 1. In: Temperman J, Gunn J, Evans M (eds) The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion or Belief: the 25 years since Kokkinakis. Brill | Nijhoff, Leiden
Chapter Google Scholar
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) (2019) 2019 Annual Report. https://www.uscirf.gov/reports-briefs/annual-report/2019-annual-report
Türmen R (2016) AİHM’in Aleviler ve cemevleri ile ilgili kararı hangi gerekçelere dayanıyor? [On what grounds does the ECtHR’s judgment on Alevis and cemevis rely?]. In: T24. https://t24.com.tr/yazarlar/riza-turmen/aihmin-aleviler-ve-cemevleri-ile-ilgili-karari-hangi-gerekcelere-dayaniyor,14502
Ulusoy A (2004) Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Üniversitelerde Türban Yasağına İlişkin Kararları Üzerine Notlar [The notes on the European Court of Human Rights Decisions on the issue of headscarf ban at universities]. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 53:125–134
Google Scholar
Van Drooghenbroeck S (2004) Strasbourg et le voile [Strasbourg and the veil]. J Juris 0:10
Google Scholar
Venice Commission (2010) Opinion on the legal status of religious communities in Turkey and the right of the orthodox patriarchate of Istanbul to use the adjective “ecumenical”. https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/5734/file/Turkey_VC_opinion_legal_status_religious_comunities_Turkey_2010_en.pdf
Wood KP (2017) Norway’s separation of Church and State: a work in progress. In: National Secular Society. https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/01/norways-separation-of-church-and-state-a-work-in-progress
Yanardağ V (2012) Kilisenin elektriğini Diyanet ödüyor [The electricity of the church is paid by the Diyanet]. https://www.aksam.com.tr/guncel/kilisenin-elektrigini-diyanet-oduyor%2D%2D109292h/haber-109292
Yildirim M (2016) Grand Chamber Judgment in Izzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey: more than a typical religious discrimination case. In: Strasbourg Observers. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2016/07/18/grand-chamber-judgment-in-izzettin-dogan-and-others-v-turkey-more-than-a-typical-religious-discrimination-case/
Yildiz I (2007) Minority rights in Turkey. BYU Law Rev 2007:791–812
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Saarbrucken, Germany
Tarlan Masmaliyeva

Authors

Tarlan Masmaliyeva
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Masmaliyeva, T. (2024). The ECtHR and Turkish Secularism. In: Turkish Secularism. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46011-1_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46011-1_7
Published: 15 December 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46010-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46011-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics