European Court of Human Rights Leyla Sahin Decision
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE LIGHT OF LEYLA SAHIN DECISION Attorney Fatma Benli Translated by Bengül Altaş, Maryam Al Zoubi, Hüseyin Erkaya, Dilek Gölet, Ayşe Maden, Jonathan Sugden, Melek Hilal Yazıcı 2010 İSTANBUL I With my endless thanks to my family who are always supporting me limitlessly. Fatma Benli Preface Though during the 80s it is a time-to time recurring food of controversy; “headscarf in the Turkish Universities”, become a material problem after the February 28 Post- Modern coup d’Etat. First the sentence of “Behaviors about the apparel which are emerged against law, push the Turkey into an outdated image; shall be banned; the law and Constitutional Court Decisions about this subject shall be applied without any exception especially on the public instutions and associations.” had been added to the well-known MGK (National Security Council) decisions. Approximately a year later, The Constitutional Court had cited the Party’s defence for freedom of headscarf in Universities as a reason of their decision of the ban of Refah Party. (Welfare Party) After the Ban decision, while wearing headscarf was completely free, a retired military officer who had a duty at the MGK, had given briefings on “how the headscarf would be banned”, to firstly university rectors, then to Judges. After then, Committee of Rectors, had published a declaration with the title of “The regulations governing the apparel at the Higher Education Institutions and Legal Comments” –which is probably had been prepared during those briefings-. After that declaration of Committee of rectors, “the rectors that are taken the briefing” had understood that the headscarf is banned at the universities and they applied the headscarf ban at this direction. Because of there is no legal grounds of exercises of “Headscarf Ban” in Universities, in different cities, the Administrative Courts had been accepted the first applications and had sentenced that the “Headscarf Ban” is unlawful. But there had instituted disciplinary proceedings against the Judges who had found the “Headscarf Ban” is unlawful; the cases had been removed from those Judges, And those Judges who had found the ban is unlawful, had been relegated and punished. From Edirne (the most west II city of Turkey) to the Van(one of the most east city in Turkey) lots of Judges had been punished because of their sentence of ” Headscarf Ban” is unlawful. As a result of this period, Judges had became “agree” upon the “Headscarf Ban” is lawful and legal. Consequently at the end of this period which lasts approximately 3 years, “Headscarf Ban” became “settled” in universities by de facto means. This de facto situation is continuing still without any legal grounds and based upon Constitutional Court’s decisions and Council of State’s decisions. One leg of one of the most biggest unlawfulness of Turkey; “Headscarf Ban” had been carried to the ECHR. The ECHR who has an undisputable sensibility towards the freedom of religion of people who have religion other than Islam, may change Its attitude when the subject is about Muslims. Its decision on “Headscarf Ban” is one of the typical sample of this attitude. This work of Attorney Fatma Benli who had dedicated his life and his works to struggle with this “Headscarf Ban”; do not only have a meaning of an analyze of ECHR’s “headscarf veil decision” but also have a significance of make an aggregated and a well organized recording over the subject. We want to emphasize that we are accepting this work as a herald of other works which reflects the knowledge of Attorney. Fatma Benli on this subject who is one of the pioneers off the struggle of “Headscarf Ban” By the way I want to remind the importance of publishing a work upon a most controversial subject upon which there is not much well qualified works are published. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şentop III CONTENTS PREFACE..............................................................................................................................................II PREFACE..............................................................................................................................................II ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................................VI ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................................VI I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 1. THE JUDICIAL PROCESS........................................................................................................................1 II. GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION IN THE ŞAHİN CASE............................3 II. GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION IN THE ŞAHİN CASE............................3 1.THE GROUNDS FOR THE COURT’S FINDING THAT THE STATE INTERFERENCE IN FREEDOM OF EDUCATION AND RELIGION WAS ACCEPTABLE .......................................................................................3 2. ASSESSMENT OF THE DECISION IN LIGHT OF THE COURT’S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES AND PRECEDENTS ...........................................................................................................................................5 aa. The decision conflicts with the ECHR’s own founding principles....................................................6 bb. Assessment of the Court’s abandonment to leave the matter to the discretion of the domestic authorities, without any analysis..........................................................................................................7 cc. Evaluation of the claim that there is no consistent European practice concerning the wearing of the headscarf in European....................................................................................................................8 3. THE GAP BETWEEN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED IN THE REASONING OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE REAL SITUATION AS EXPERIENCED BY STUDENTS SUBJECT TO THE HEADSCARF BAN ..........................10 aa. The principle of accommodating diversity in a shared space, and pluralism...............................11 bb. The principle of equality................................................................................................................11 cc. The principle of proportionality.....................................................................................................11 dd. The claim that habitual forms of religious observance were accommodated.............................12 ee. Protection of the rights of others..................................................................................................13 ff. The development of women’s rights..............................................................................................14 gg. Context of dialogue in universities................................................................................................14 4. LEGALITY OF THE ALLEGATION THAT LEYLA ŞAHİN WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON STUDENTS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR HEADSCARF.....................................................................................................15 bb. The decision is based on probable risks but not on reality..........................................................17 cc. The decision brings an accusation against all women whose heads are covered.........................19 5. DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM REQUIRE HEADSCARF BAN?..................................................20 aa. The concept of secularism provided by the ECHR for Turkey........................................................23 bb. The perception of the European Union on secularism..................................................................24 cc. The assessment of the attribution of the Refah decision to the Sahin case..................................26 aaa. The true nature of the ECHR and the establishment of a judgment by from two differing cases of different claimants. ......................................................................................................................................27 IV 6. THE ECHR’S ALLEGATION REGARDING THE HEADSCARF FOR BEING CONTRADICTORY TO GENDER EQUALITY...............................................................................................................................................28 aa. The rates of women’s participation in the social life in Turkey....................................................31 bb. The effects of the headscarf ban on women.................................................................................32 7. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA OF DISCRIMINATION AND IMPARTIALITY................................................34 III. TURKISH JURISPRUDENCE AND THE GROUNDS OF THE COURT FOR UPHOLDING THE INTERVENTION ..........................................................................................................................................................36 III. TURKISH JURISPRUDENCE AND THE GROUNDS OF THE COURT FOR UPHOLDING THE INTERVENTION ..........................................................................................................................................................36 1. THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ECHR ON THE LEGALITY OF THE INTERVENTION...................................................................36