FORMER
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF HASAN AND
EYLEM ZENGİN v. TURKEY
(Application no.
1448/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
October 2007
FINAL
09/01/2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in
Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey,
The European
Court of Human Rights
(former Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa,
President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3
October 2006 and 18 September 2007,
Delivers the
following judgment,
which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The
case originated in
an application (no. 1448/04) against the Republic of Turkey
lodged
with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Turkish
nationals, Mr
Hasan Zengin and Miss Eylem Zengin (“the applicants”) on 2 January
2004.
2. The
applicants were
granted legal aid.
3. The
applicants
maintained, in particular, that the manner in which the compulsory
lessons in
religious culture and ethics were taught infringed their rights as
guaranteed
by the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article
9 of the
Convention.
4. In
a decision of 6
June 2006, the Chamber declared the application admissible.
5. A
hearing took place
in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 3 October 2006
(Rule 59
§ 3 of the Rules of Court).
There appeared
before the Court:
– for the Government
Mr M. Özmen, Co-Agent,
Mr H. Ünler,
Ms Z.G. Acar,
Ms E. Esin,
Ms D. Kilislioğlu,
Mr İ. Aycan,
Mr S. Duman, Advisers;
– for the applicants
Mr K. Genç, Counsel,
Mr A.Ş. Yakişan,
Ms İ. Melikoff
Mr T. Öker, Advisers,
Mr H. Zengin, First
applicant.
The Court heard
addresses by Mr Genç and Mr Özmen.
THE FACTS
I. THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. Hasan
Zengin, who was
born in 1960, and his daughter Eylem Zengin, who was born in 1988, live
in
Istanbul.
At the time Mr
Zengin lodged the
application on his own and his daughter's behalf, she was attending the
seventh
grade of the state school in Avcılar, Istanbul.
A. Background
to the case
7. Hasan
Zengin stated
that his family were adherents of Alevism.
8. Alevism
originated in
central Asia but developed largely in Turkey. Two important
Sufis had a
considerable impact on the emergence of this religious movement: Hoca
Ahmet
Yesevi (12th century) and Haci Bektaşi Veli (14th
century). This belief system, which has deep roots in Turkish society
and
history, is generally considered as one of the branches of Islam,
influenced in
particular by Sufism and by certain pre-Islamic beliefs. Its religious
practices differ from those of the Sunni1
schools of law in certain aspects such as prayer, fasting and
pilgrimage.
9. According
to the applicant, Alevism is a
belief or philosophy influenced by other cultures, religions and
philosophies. It
represents one of the most widespread faiths in Turkey after
the
Hanafite2
branch of Islam. It advocates close contact with nature, tolerance,
modesty and
love for one's neighbour, within the Islamic faith. Alevis reject the
sharia
(code of laws in orthodox Islam) and the sunna
(forms of behaviour and formal rules of orthodox Islam) and defend
freedom of
religion, human rights, women's rights, humanism, democracy,
rationalism,
modernism, universalism, tolerance and secularism. Alevis do not pray
by the
Sunni rite (in particular, they do not comply with the obligation to
pray five
times daily) but express their devotion through religious songs and
dances (semah); they do
not attend mosques, but
meet regularly in cemevi
(meeting
and worship rooms) for ritual ceremonies. Equally, Alevis do not
consider the
pilgrimage to Mecca as a religious obligation. They believe that Allah
is
present in each person. According to Alevism, Allah created Adam in his
image
and all his manifestations in this world are in human form. Allah is
neither in
the sky nor in paradise, but in the centre of the human heart.
B. The
applicants' request for exemption and application to have the decision
set
aside
10. On
23 February 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Provincial
Directorate of National Education (“the Directorate”) at the Istanbul
Governor's Office, seeking to have his daughter exempted from religious
culture
and ethics classes. Pointing out that his family were followers of
Alevism, he
stressed that, under international treaties such as, for example, the
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, parents had the right to choose the type
of
education their children were to receive. In addition, he alleged that
the
compulsory course in religious culture and ethics was incompatible with
the
principle of secularism.
11. On
2 April 2001 the Directorate replied that it was impossible to grant
the
exemption request. In particular, it stated:
“... Article 24
of the Constitution states that 'Education and instruction in religion
and
ethics shall be conducted under State supervision and control.
Instruction in
religious culture and moral education shall be compulsory in the
curricula of
primary and secondary schools. Other religious education and
instruction shall
be subject to the individual's own desire, and in the case of minors,
to the
request of their legal representatives.'
Article 12 of the
State Education Act (Law no. 1739) ... provides that 'secularism shall
be the
basis of Turkish national education. Religious culture and ethics shall
be
among the compulsory subjects taught in primary and upper secondary
schools,
and in schools of these levels.'”
For these
reasons, your request cannot be granted.”
12. Following
the Directorate's refusal, the applicant applied to the Istanbul
Administrative
Court for judicial review. He alleged that the compulsory classes in
religious
culture and ethics were essentially based on the fundamental rules of
Hanafite
Islam and that no teaching was given on his own faith. He challenged, inter alia, the compulsory
nature of this
school subject.
13. In
a decision of 28 December 2001, the Administrative Court dismissed the
applicant's request, holding, inter
alia:
“Article 24 of
the Constitution has established that religious culture and ethics are
among
the compulsory subjects taught in primary and secondary schools, and
section 12 of Law no. 1739 [states] that religious culture and
ethics are
among the compulsory subjects taught in primary and upper secondary
schools of
the equivalent level.
In this context,
the dismissal of the plaintiff's request is not contrary to the law...”
14. The
applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment, relying, inter alia, on the Convention.
15. In
a judgment of 14 April 2003, served on 5 August 2003, the Supreme
Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance
judgment, holding that the latter complied with the procedural rules
and the
legislation.
II. RELEVANT
DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Constitution
16. Article
24 of the Constitution, in so far as relevant, provides:
“1. Everyone
has the right to freedom of conscience, religious belief and conviction.
2. Acts
of worship, religious services, and ceremonies shall be conducted
freely,
provided that they do not violate the provisions of Article 14.
3. No
one shall be compelled to worship, or to participate in religious
ceremonies
and rites, to reveal religious beliefs and convictions, or be blamed or
accused
because of his religious beliefs and convictions.
4. Education
and instruction in religion and ethics shall be conducted under State
supervision and control. Instruction in religious culture and moral
education
shall be compulsory in the curricula of primary and secondary schools.
Other
religious education and instruction shall be subject to the
individual's own
desire, and in the case of minors, to the request of their legal
representatives.
5. No
one shall be allowed to exploit or abuse religion or religious
feelings, or
things held sacred by religion, in any manner whatsoever, for the
purpose of
personal or political influence, or for even partially basing the
fundamental,
social, economic, political, and legal order of the State on religious
tenets.”
B. The
State Education Act (Law no. 1739)
17. Section
12 of the State Education Act (Law no. 1739) provides:
“Secularism is
the basis of Turkish state education. Religious culture and ethics
shall be
among the compulsory subjects taught in primary and upper secondary
schools and
in schools of an equivalent level.”
C. Decisions
on exemptions and on the syllabus
1. Decision
no. 1 of 9 July 1990 on exemptions
18. On
9 July 1990 the Supreme Council for Education adopted a decision on
religious
culture and ethics classes and pupils who were entitled to exemption
from them.
It stated:
“Following the
proposal by the Ministry of Education, pupils of Turkish nationality
who belong
to the Christian or Jewish religions and who attend primary and
secondary
schools, with the exception of schools for minorities, are not obliged
to
follow the classes in religious culture and ethics, provided they
affirm their
adherence to those religions. If, however, such pupils wish to attend
such
classes, they must submit a written request from their legal
representative.”
19. At
the hearing the Government explained that this exemption procedure
could be
extended to other religious or philosophical convictions, such as
atheism,
without however producing specific examples.
2. The
Turkish education system and decision no. 373 of 19 September 2000
on
guidelines for classes in religious culture and ethics
20. Since
1997 compulsory state education has lasted eight years (instead of the
previous
five) for children aged 6 to 14; the first five years correspond to
primary
school (1st to 5th grade) and the following three
to
secondary school (6th to 8th grade).
21. In decision no.
373 of 19
September 2000, the Minister of Education approved the guidelines for
classes
in religious culture and ethics (taught in grades 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8).
The principles adopted in this
connection
are as follows:
“... today, when intercultural
influence
is increasing, it has become necessary, in order to foster a culture of
peace
and a context of tolerance to know about other religions.
For this reason, the school
syllabus...;
... includes teaching [to the
effect]
that the aim of all religions is to educate upright individuals.
[Religious
instruction also aims to educate people] who are informed about the
historical
development of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, their main
features and the content of their doctrine, and to be able to assess,
using
objective criteria, the position of Islam in relation to Judaism and
Christianity...
A. The principles
to be
observed during the teaching and learning experience...
1. Always
bear in mind the principle of secularism. There should be no
infringement of
freedom of religion, conscience, thought and expression.
2. Emphasise
that differences in religious understanding and practice are of value.
3. Take
advantage, in so far as possible, of pupils' feelings and behaviour in
order to
socialise them and to educate them as good citizens through religious
and
ethical knowledge.
4. Seek
to ensure that pupils internalise the principles of love, respect,
fraternity
and friendship, which strengthen national unity and union, and national
concepts and values such as the homeland, the nation, the flag, the
martyr...
5. Emphasise
that religion is one of the important principles of the national
culture.
...
9. Teach
the concept of worship in the wide sense; that work, cleanliness and
high moral
standards are ways of worshipping...
10. Make
pupils aware that acts of worship, as well as being demonstrations of
love,
respect and gratitude towards Allah, enable the individuals in a group
to bond
in love and respect, to help each other, to show solidarity...
11. When
studying subjects related to the prophet Mohammed, provide examples
concerning
his morality.
...
13. Base
lesson material on verses [from the Koran] and relevant sayings and
traditions
[of Mohammed]..., the passages for reading should be illustrated by
stories and
images.
14. Throughout
the entire teaching process, make a careful distinction, in covering
topics and
the choice of examples, between those from the Koran and those
developed
subsequently. To this end, taking into account public and community
events,
emphasise those which have their source in the Koran and those which
result
from habit, customs, tradition, beliefs, lifestyles and cultural
influence.
...
Using different examples,
explain that,
far from being a myth, Islam is a rational and universal religion.
...
7th grade... Units:
Unit 1 –
Knowledge of the Koran. Unit 2 – Religion is good morals. Unit 3 –
Pilgrimage
and sacrifice. Unit 4 – Angels and other invisible beings. Unit 5
– Belief
in the other world. Unit 6 – Our family. Unit 7 – Knowledge of
religions...”
22. The applicants
submitted
five textbooks, for grades 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, on religious culture
and
ethics. They are used in schools, having been authorised by the
Ministry of
Education.
In the 4th grade
textbook,
instruction moved from the concept of religion to examine the
relationship
between morality and religion, the Creator and the creature, the family
and
religion, and knowledge of the life of the prophet Mohamed.
The 5th grade
textbook begins
by explaining the meaning of the expression “I believe in God”. It
focuses
particularly on teaching the fundamental concepts of Islam: the
profession of
faith, prayer, the mosque as the place of worship, the nature of the
prayers
recited during the month of Ramadan, the prophet Mohammed's family
life. A
general overview is given of the prophets whose names appear in the
Koran.
The 6th grade
textbook begins
by covering the different daily prayers. It is explained that every
Muslim is
obliged to pray five times daily. The corresponding rituals are
illustrated in
the book, which then deals with subjects such as charity, love for the
homeland
and the nation, harmful behaviour, friendship and brotherhood, and the
four
holy books, namely the Torah, the Zabur (psalms), the Gospels and the
Koran.
The 7th grade
textbook
emphasises knowledge of the Koran, the link between religion and high
moral
standards, pilgrimage and sacrifice, angels and invisible creatures,
belief in
the other world and the family. In addition, the main religions, namely
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, are presented over
fifteen
pages.
The 8th grade
textbook
discusses the prophet Mohammed's high moral standards, culture and
religion,
the concepts of religion, reason and science, belief in fate and the
link
between faith and conduct. Subjects such as “differences in approach in
religion”, “advice of religions and of Islam”, “secularism”, “freedom
of
religion and conviction” are also covered in this book.
It appears from reading these
textbooks
that the pupils are also required to learn several suras from the Koran
by
heart.
23. For their part,
the
Government submitted the textbook for the 9th grade
(the first
year of upper secondary school).
This textbook begins by
dealing with
man's place in the universe. It subsequently covers topics such as
human nature
and religion, the role of religion in human life and the various forms
of
belief, namely monotheism, polytheism, Gnosticism, agnosticism and
atheism.
Explanations are also provided for various concepts, such as prayer and
the
link between prayer and cleanliness; this chapter illustrates the
rituals
surrounding the partial and total ablutions in Islam (gusul and abdest).
In addition, certain essential elements, such as the life of Mohammed,
the
Koran and fundamental concepts (interpretation, the suras, etc.), are
described
with the aim of providing information on Islam. The rest of the
textbook deals
primarily with the concepts of “values and family”, “the homeland,
flag,
freedom, independence, human rights, secularism, the secular State,
Ataturk and
secularism, etc”. Finally, it deals with the subject of “the Turks and
Islam”
in the context of Turkish history; this chapter examines the Turks'
former
beliefs, such as the concept of “God-heaven”, Manichaeism, Buddhism,
the
Christian religion and Judaism. Individuals who influenced the Turks'
understanding of Islam are also discussed, in particular Ebu Hanife
(born 699, died 767, founder of the Hanafite school) and Imam
Şafii
(born 767, died 820, founder of the Shafite School), as well as
Hoca Ahmet
Yesevi and Haci Bektas Veli (see paragraph 8 above).
24. The Government
also
explained that pupils were assessed in this subject only by written
examinations.
III. RELEVANT
INTERNATIONAL
TEXTS
A. International
Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
25. The relevant
passage of
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
provides:
“4. The States
Parties to the
present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents
and, when
applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education
of
their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
B. Recommendations
1396 (1999)
and 1720 (2005) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
26. In
Recommendation 1396
(1999) on religion and democracy, adopted on 27 January 1999, the
Assembly
recommended that the Committee of Ministers invite the governments of
the
member States, inter alia:
“13. ... (ii) to promote
education
about religions and, in particular, to:
(a) step up the
teaching about
religions as sets of values towards which young people must develop a
discerning approach, within the framework of education on ethics and
democratic
citizenship;
(b) promote the
teaching in
schools of the comparative history of different religions, stressing
their
origins, the similarities in some of their values and the diversity of
their
customs, traditions, festivals, and so on; ...
(e) avoid – in the
case of
children – any conflict between the state-promoted education about
religion and
the religious faith of the families, in order to respect the free
decision of
the families in this very sensitive matter...”
27. In
Recommendation 1720
(2005), adopted on 4 October 2005, the Assembly recommended that the
Committee
of Minsters encourage the governments of member States to ensure that
religious
studies were taught at the primary and secondary levels of state
education, on
the basis, inter
alia,
of the following criteria:
“14.1. the aim of
this
education should be to make pupils discover the religions practised in
their
own and neighbouring countries, to make them perceive that everyone has
the
same right to believe that their religion is the “true faith” and that
other
people are not different human beings through having a different
religion or
not having a religion at all;
14.2. it should
include, with
complete impartiality, the history of the main religions, as well as
the option
of having no religion;
14.3. it should
provide young
people with educational tools that enable them to be quite secure in
approaching supporters of a fanatical religious practice;
14.4. it must not
overstep the
borderline between the realms of culture and worship, even where a
country with
a state religion is concerned. It is not a matter of instilling a faith
but of
making young people understand why religions are sources of faith for
millions;
14.5. teachers on
religions
need to have specific training. They should be teachers of a cultural
or
literary discipline. However, specialists in another discipline could
be made
responsible for this education;
14.6. the state
authorities
should look after teacher training and lay down the syllabuses which
should be
adapted to each country's peculiarities and to the pupils' ages. In
devising
these programmes, the Council of Europe will consult all partners
concerned,
including representatives of the religious faiths.”
C. The European
Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
28. The European
Commission
against Racism and Intolerance has already given its view on the
teaching of
religion in schools in General policy recommendation no. 5 on
“Combating
intolerance and discrimination against Muslims” (CRI (2000) 21,
27 April 2000). After reiterating the principles of respect for
equality
and non-discrimination between religions and recognising the great
diversity
intrinsic in the practice of Islam, it recommended that the governments
of
member States “ensure that religious instruction in schools respects
cultural
pluralism and make provision for teacher training to this effect”.
29. In its third
report on Turkey
(CRI (2005), the ECRI also considered, in particular, that:
“The syllabus covers all
religions and is
chiefly designed to give pupils an idea of all existing religions.
However,
several sources have described these courses as instruction in the
principles
of the Muslim faith rather than a course covering several religious
cultures.
ECRI notes that only Muslim pupils are required to follow these
courses, while
pupils belonging to minority religious groups can be exempted. ECRI
considers
the situation unclear: if this is indeed a course on the different
religious
cultures, there is no reason to make it compulsory for Muslim children
alone.
Conversely, if the course is essentially designed to teach the Muslim
religion,
it is a course on a specific religion and should not be compulsory, in
order to
preserve children's and their parents' religious freedom.”
In consequence, ECRI urged the
Turkish
authorities:
“... to reconsider their
approach to
instruction in religious culture. They should take steps either to make
this
instruction optional for everyone or to revise its content so as to
ensure that
it genuinely covers all religious cultures and is no longer perceived
as
instruction in the Muslim religion.”
IV. COMPARATIVE LAW
30. In
Europe, religious education is closely tied in with secular education.
Of the
46 Council of Europe member States which were examined, 43 provide
religious
education classes in state schools. Only Albania, France (with the
exception of
the Alsace and Moselle regions) and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
are the exceptions to this rule. In Slovenia, non-confessional teaching
is offered
in the last years of state education.
31. In 25 of the 46
member
States (including Turkey), religious education is a compulsory
subject.
However, the scope of this obligation varies depending on the State. In
five
countries, namely Finland, Greece, Norway, Sweden and Turkey,
the
obligation to attend classes in religious education is absolute. All
pupils who
belong to the religious faith taught in the classes are obliged to
follow them,
partially or fully. However, ten States allow for exemptions under
certain
conditions. This is the case in Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Ireland,
Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino and the United Kingdom. In the
majority of these countries, religious education is denominational.
32. Ten other
countries give pupils
the opportunity to choose a substitute lesson in place of compulsory
religious
education. This is the case in Germany, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovakia and
Switzerland. In
those countries, denominational education is included in the curriculum
drawn
up by the relevant ministries and pupils are obliged to attend unless
they have
opted for the substitute lesson proposed.
33. In contrast, 21
member
States do not oblige pupils to follow classes in religious education.
Religious
education is generally authorised in the school system but pupils only
attend
if they have made a request to that effect. This is what happens in the
largest
group of States: Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Spain,
Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, Portugal,
the Czech
Republic, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Finally, in a third group of
States,
pupils are obliged to attend a religious education or substitute class,
but
always have the option of attending a secular lesson.
34. This general
overview of
religious education in Europe shows that, in spite of the variety of
teaching
methods, almost all of the member States offer at least one route by
which
pupils can opt out of religious education classes (by providing an
exemption
mechanism or the option of attending a lesson in a substitute subject,
or by
giving pupils the choice of whether or not to sign up to a religious
studies
class).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF THE
SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
35. The applicants
submitted
that the way in which religious culture and ethics were taught in
primary and
secondary schools infringed their rights under the second sentence of
Article 2
of Protocol No. 1, which provides:
“In the exercise of any
functions which
it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall
respect
the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in
conformity with
their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
A. The parties'
submissions
1. The applicants
36. The applicants
alleged
that the classes in religious culture and ethics were not conducted in
an
objective, critical or pluralist manner, and thus did not fulfil the
criteria
identified by the Court in the context of its interpretation of Article
2 of
Protocol No. 1. The syllabus, which was taught entirely from a
religious
perspective and which praised the Sunni interpretation of the Islamic
faith and
tradition, together with textbooks describing the traditional rites of
Sunni
Islam, clearly indicated that this instruction lacked objectivity. The
fact
that fifteen pages of the 7th grade textbook were used
to
present certain religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism and
Buddhism, was insufficient to ensure compliance with the
above-mentioned
principles. In reality, only the precepts, rites and prayers of the
Muslim
faith, always in its Sunni form, were taught, and no detailed
information was
provided about the other religions. As an example, the applicants
stated that,
over nineteen pages of the 6th grade textbook, only the
various
daily prayers in Islam were described.
37. Further, the
content and
syllabus of the classes in religious culture and ethics were organised
in such
a way that the existence of the applicants' faith was denied and Islam
was
taught from a Sunni perspective. The fact that certain information
concerning
the major figures of the Alevi faith was provided in the 9th grade
textbook was
far from sufficient to remedy this shortcoming, in that the precepts of
Sunni
Islam, such as “the fear of committing sin”, in the religious sense of
the
term, were inculcated from childhood.
38. The applicants
challenged
the argument that the subject contained no information of a religious
nature on
the doctrine and rituals of a specific religion. In reality, the
syllabus and
textbooks used in the schools and all the information concerning the
implementation of the syllabus showed that the main aim of the classes
was to
strengthen the pupils' Islamic culture, which was also the main theme
in the
teaching. The applicants had no doubt that these classes were intended
to
provide cultural teaching and to transmit a set of beliefs. The fact
that
morality was also taught was merely a method of dissimulating the
hidden aim of
these classes.
39. In addition,
according to
the applicants, a State governed by the principle of secularism could
not have
a wide margin of appreciation in the field of religious education. The
State
could not teach a religion to children who were educated in state
schools. The
applicants alleged that the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality
was
incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the
legitimacy of
religious beliefs or their means of expression.
2. The Government
40. On the basis of
the power
to regulate, which the Court in its case-law had acknowledged was
enjoyed by
the State, the Government argued that education and religious and moral
teaching were conducted under the State's supervision in order to
prevent abuses.
The State enjoyed discretionary power in this area. In this regard,
they
referred to the principles set out in the decision adopted on 19
September 2000
(see paragraph 21 above) and stressed that the classes in question
had
been drawn up for the purpose of promoting understanding, tolerance and
respect
among pupils from differing backgrounds and in order to develop respect
and
understanding of each individual's identity, of Turkey's
national
history and values and of other religions and philosophies of life.
41. The Government
emphasised
that the syllabus, drawn up by the Ministry of Education and not by the
religious authorities, complied with the principle of secularism, in
accordance
with Article 24 of the Constitution and section 12 of the State
Education Act
(Law no. 1739), and certainly did not correspond to denominational
instruction.
In this connection, they challenged the applicants' allegation that
instruction
in religious matters was based on the Sunni understanding of Islam. In
the
classes on religious culture and ethics, no specific instruction was
provided
on the doctrine and rituals of a particular religion; general
information
was given about various religions. In addition, the compulsory nature
of the
class implied only that the children had to attend the lessons.
42. The Government
also
alleged that the mere fact of providing children with teaching on the
Muslim
faith could not in itself raise a question under the Convention, so
long as the
lessons were taught in an objective, pluralist and neutral manner.
There were
legitimate grounds in contemporary Turkish society for granting more
time to
the study of Islam than to other religions and philosophies of life.
This was
particularly so given that Turkey was a secular State and that
schools
were therefore the most appropriate institution for transmitting such
knowledge.
43. The syllabus of
the
subject “religious culture and ethics” did not take into consideration
the
vision of members of a branch [mezhep]
of Islam or a religious order [tarikat]
represented in the country and, consequently, these topics were not
covered.
The Government also argued that knowledge of the Alevi faith, which
seemed to
belong more to the area of philosophy, required more in-depth teaching.
Thus,
information on this topic was given in the 9th grade (the
first year
of upper secondary school).
44. The Government
emphasised
that the compulsory nature of the class arose from the fact that it was
necessary to protect children from myths and erroneous information,
which gave
rise to fanaticism. In this connection, they stressed that Jewish and
Christian
pupils were exempted from these lessons under the Treaty of Lausanne
and
decision no. 1 of the Supreme Council for Education (see paragraph 18
above).
During the hearing they also indicated that, if individuals professing
atheism
wished to be exempted, their request was assessed by the authorities.
45. The Government
also
pointed out that the teaching was dispensed under the supervision of
the
administrative courts, which strictly monitored compliance with the
principle
of secularism. In addition, the teachers responsible for primary school
classes
were trained in universities and had obtained diplomas in the
discipline of
“knowledge of religious culture and morality”. Teachers responsible for
these
classes at secondary level had a Masters-level degree from a faculty of
theology.
46. Finally,
according to the
Government, it was clear from the Court's settled case-law that the
preparation
and content of curricula fell within the discretionary power of the
State.
Consequently, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 did not enable parents
to object
to this State prerogative. If it were otherwise, it would be impossible
to put
in place institutionalised education.
B. The Court's
assessment
1. General
principles
47. As regards the
general
interpretation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has set
out the
main principles in its case-law (see, in particular, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v.
Denmark,
judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 24-28, §§ 50-54;
Campbell and Cosans v. the
United Kingdom,
judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, pp. 16-18,
§§ 36-37; Valsamis v. Greece,
judgment of 18
December 1996, Reports of Judgments
and
Decisions 1996-VI, pp. 2323-2324, §§ 25-28; and, most
recently, Folgerř and Others v.
Norway [GC], no.
15472/02, § 84, 29 June 2007). The two sentences of Article 2 of
Protocol
No. 1 must be read not only in the light of each other but also, in
particular,
of Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen,
cited
above, § 52).
48. The right of
parents to
respect for their religious and philosophical convictions is grafted on
to this
fundamental right, and the first sentence does not distinguish, any
more than
the second, between State and private teaching. In short, the second
sentence
of Article 2 aims at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in
education, a
possibility which is essential for the preservation of the “democratic
society”
as conceived by the Convention. In view of the power of the modern
State, it is
above all through State teaching that this aim must be realised (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen,
cited
above, § 50).
49. Article 2 of
Protocol No.
1 does not permit a distinction to be drawn between religious
instruction and
other subjects. It enjoins the State to respect parents' convictions,
be they
religious or philosophical, throughout the entire State education
programme
(see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and
Pedersen,
cited above, § 51). That duty is broad in its extent as it applies not
only to
the content of education and the manner of its provision but also to
the
performance of all the “functions” assumed by the State. The verb
“respect”
means more than “acknowledge” or “take into account”. In addition to a
primarily negative undertaking, it implies some positive obligation on
the part
of the State. The word “convictions”, taken on its own, is not
synonymous with
the words “opinions” and “ideas”. It denotes views that attain a
certain level
of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance (see Valsamis, cited above, §§ 25
and 27, and Campbell and Cosans,
cited above, §§
36-37).
50. It is in
the
discharge of a natural duty towards their children – parents being
primarily
responsible for the “education and teaching” of their children – that
parents
may require the State to respect their religious and philosophical
convictions.
Their right thus corresponds to a responsibility closely linked to the
enjoyment and the exercise of the right to education (ibid).
51. However, the
setting and
planning of the curriculum fall in principle within the competence of
the
Contracting States. This mainly involves questions of expediency on
which it is
not for the Court to rule and whose solution may legitimately vary
according to
the country and the era (see Valsamis,
cited above, § 28). In particular, the second sentence of
Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 does not prevent the States from disseminating in State
schools,
by means of the teaching given, objective information or knowledge of a
directly or indirectly religious or philosophical kind. It does not
even permit
parents to object to the integration of such teaching or education in
the
school curriculum, for otherwise all institutionalised teaching would
run the
risk of proving impracticable (see Kjeldsen,
Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, § 53).
In fact, it seems very
difficult for many
subjects taught at school not to have, to a greater or lesser extent,
some
philosophical complexion or implications. The same is true of religious
affinities if one remembers the existence of religions forming a very
broad
dogmatic and moral entity which has or may have answers to every
question of a
philosophical, cosmological or moral nature (ibid,
§ 53).
52. The second
sentence of
Article 2 implies on the other hand that the State, in fulfilling the
functions
assumed by it in regard to education and teaching, must take care that
information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an
objective, critical and pluralistic manner, enabling pupils to develop
a
critical mind with regard to religion (see, in particular, paragraph 14
of
Recommendation 1720 (2005), paragraph 27 above) in a calm
atmosphere which
is free of any misplaced proselytism (see Şefika
Köse and 93 Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26625/02,
24 January 2006). The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of
indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents'
religious
and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that must not be
exceeded (see
Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen,
cited above, § 53).
53. In order
to examine
the disputed legislation under Article 2 of the Protocol, interpreted
as above,
one must, while avoiding any evaluation of the legislation's
expediency, have
regard to the material situation that it sought and still seeks to
meet.
Although, in the past, the Convention organs have not found education
providing
information on religions to be contrary to the Convention, they have
carefully
scrutinised whether pupils were obliged to take part in a form of
religious
worship or were exposed to any form of religious indoctrination. In the
same
context, the arrangements for exemption are also a factor to be taken
into
account (see Anna-Nina Angeleni v.
Sweden,
no. 10491/83, Commission decision of 3 December 1986, Decisions
and
Reports (DR) 51, p. 41; Zénon
Bernard
v. Luxembourg, no. 17187/90, Commission decision of 8
September
1993, DR 75, p. 57; C.J., J.J.
and E.J.
v. Poland, no. 23380/94, Commission decision of 16 January
1996, DR
84, p. 46). Certainly, abuses can occur as to the manner in which the
provisions in force are applied by a given school or teacher and the
competent
authorities have a duty to take the utmost care to see to it that
parents'
religious and philosophical convictions are not disregarded at this
level by
carelessness, lack of judgment or misplaced proselytism (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen,
cited
above, § 54).
54. The Court
reiterates that
it has always stressed that, in a pluralist democratic society, the
State's
duty of impartiality and neutrality towards various religions, faiths
and
beliefs is incompatible with any assessment by the State of the
legitimacy of
religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed (see
Manoussakis and Others v. Greece,
judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports
1996-IV,
p. 1365, § 47, and Hasan and Chaush
v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 78, ECHR 2000-XI).
Further,
the State does not need to take measures to ensure that religious
communities
remain or are brought under a unified leadership (see Serif v. Greece,
no. 38178/97,
§ 51, ECHR 1999-IX).
55. Such an
interpretation of
the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 is consistent
at one
and the same time with the first sentence of the same provision, with
Articles
8 to 10 of the Convention and with the general spirit of the Convention
itself,
an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of
a
democratic society (see Kjeldsen,
Busk Madsen
and Pedersen, cited above, § 53). This is particularly true
in that
teaching is an integral part of the process whereby a school seeks to
achieve
the object for which it was established, including the development and
moulding
of the character and mental powers of its pupils as well as their
personal
independence.
2. Application of
these
principles
56. Pursuant to the
Turkish
Constitution, Ms Zengin, who was a pupil in a state school, was obliged
to
attend classes in “religious culture and ethics” from the fourth year
of
primary school.
57. In the light of
the
principles set out above, the Court must determine, firstly, if the
content-matter of this subject is taught in an objective, critical and
pluralist manner, in order to ensure that it is compatible with the
principles
which emerge from the case-law concerning the second sentence of
Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1. Secondly, it will examine whether appropriate
provisions have
been introduced in the Turkish educational system to ensure that
parents'
convictions are respected.
(a) Content of the
lessons
58. According to
the syllabus
for “religious culture and ethics” classes, the subject is to be taught
in
compliance with respect for the principles of secularism and freedom of
thought, religion and conscience, and is intended to “foster a culture
of peace
and a context of tolerance”. It also aims to transmit knowledge
concerning all
of the major religions. One of the objectives of the syllabus is
educate people
“who are informed about the historical development of Judaism,
Christianity,
Hinduism and Buddhism, their main features and the content of their
doctrine,
and to be able to assess, using objective criteria, the position of
Islam in
relation to Judaism and Christianity” (see paragraph 21 above).
59. In the Court's
view, the
intentions set out above are clearly compatible with the principles of
pluralism and objectivity enshrined in Article 2 of Protocol No.
1. In
this regard, it notes that the principle of secularism, as guaranteed
by the
Turkish Constitution, prevents the State from manifesting a preference
for a
particular religion or belief, thereby guiding the State in its role of
impartial arbiter, and necessarily entails freedom of religion and
conscience
(see Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC],
no. 44774/98, § 113, ECHR 2005-...). In this connection, it notes
with
interest the Government's observations to the effect that, firstly, the
teaching of religion in schools is an appropriate method of combating
fanaticism and, secondly, the administrative courts are responsible for
supervising compliance with the principle of secularism, both in terms
of
preparation of the syllabus and in its implementation.
60. The Court
observes,
however, that, although the instruction is based on the principles set
out
above, the teaching programme also aims to raise awareness among pupils
of
“[the fact that] acts of worship, as well as being demonstrations of
love,
respect and gratitude towards Allah, enable the individuals in a group
to bond
with love and respect, to help each other, to show solidarity” and
“using
different examples, to explain that, far from being a myth, Islam is a
rational
and universal religion”. The syllabus also includes study of the
conduct of the
prophet Mohamed and of the Koran. Equally, the syllabus for the 7th
grade includes teaching on fundamental aspects of the Islamic religion,
such as
“pilgrimage and sacrifice”, “angels and other invisible creatures” and
“belief
in the other world”.
61. As to the
textbooks used
in the context of these classes, examination shows that they are not
limited to
transmitting information on religions in general; they also contain
texts which
appear to provide instruction in the major principles of the Muslim
faith and
provide a general overview of its cultural rites, such as the
profession of
faith, the five daily prayers, Ramadan, pilgrimage, the concepts of
angels and
invisible creatures, belief in the other world, etc. (see paragraph 21
above).
62. Equally, pupils
must learn
several suras from the Koran by heart and study, with the support of
illustrations, the daily prayers (see paragraph 22 above) and sit
written
tests for the purpose of assessment (see paragraph 24 above).
63. Thus, the
syllabus for
teaching in primary schools and the first cycle of secondary school,
and all of
the textbooks drawn up in accordance with the Ministry of Education's
decision
no. 373 of 19 September 2000, give greater priority to knowledge of
Islam than
they do to that of other religions and philosophies. In the Court's
view, this
itself cannot be viewed as a departure from the principles of pluralism
and
objectivity which would amount to indoctrination (see Folgerř and Others, cited
above,
§ 89), having regard to the fact that, notwithstanding the State's
secular
nature, Islam is the majority religion practiced in Turkey.
64. Moreover, the
question
arises whether the priority given to the teaching of Islam may be
considered as
remaining within acceptable limits for the purposes of Article 2 of
Protocol
No. 1. In fact, given the syllabus and textbooks in question, it may
reasonably
be supposed that attendance at these classes is likely to influence the
minds
of young children. It is therefore appropriate to examine whether the
information or knowledge in the syllabus is disseminated in an
objective,
critical and pluralist manner.
65. In this regard,
the
applicant alleged that no teaching was provided on the Alevi faith or
its
rituals in the compulsory “religious culture and ethics” lessons,
although this
religious movement differed in numerous areas from the conception of
religion
presented in school. According to the Government, this resulted from
the fact
that, in this syllabus, the vision of members of a branch of Islam or
of a
religious order represented in the country was not taken into
consideration.
66. As to the Alevi
faith, it
is not disputed between the parties that it is a religious conviction
which has
deep roots in Turkish society and history and that it has features
which are
particular to it (see paragraphs 8-9 above). It is thus distinct from
the Sunni
understanding of Islam which is taught in schools. It is certainly
neither a
sect nor a “belief” which does not attain a certain level of cogency,
seriousness, cohesion and importance (see Campbell
and Cosans, cited above, § 36). In consequence, the
expression
“religious convictions”, within the meaning of the second sentence of
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, is undoubtedly applicable to this
faith.
67. As the
Government have
recognised, however, in the “religious culture and morals” lessons, the
religious diversity which prevails in Turkish society is not taken into
account. In particular, pupils receive no teaching on the confessional
or
ritual specificities of the Alevi faith, although the proportion of the
Turkish
population belonging to is very large. As to the Government's argument
that
certain information about the Alevis was taught in the 9th
grade,
the Court, like the applicants (see paragraph 43 above), considers
that,
in the absence of instruction in the basic elements of this faith in
primary
and secondary school, the fact that the life and philosophy of two
individuals
who had a major impact on its emergence are taught in the 9th
grade
is insufficient to compensate for the shortcomings in this teaching.
68. Admittedly,
parents may
always enlighten and advise their children, exercise with regard to
their
children natural parental functions as educators, or guide their
children on a
path in line with the parents' own religious or philosophical
convictions (see Valsamis,
cited above, § 31 in fine).
Nonetheless, where the
Contracting States include the study of religion in the subjects on
school
curricula, and irrespective of the arrangements for exemption, pupils'
parents
may legitimately expect that the subject will be taught in such a way
as to
meet the criteria of objectivity and pluralism, and with respect for
their
religious or philosophical convictions.
69. In this regard,
the Court
considers that, in a democratic society, only pluralism in education
can enable
pupils to develop a critical mind with regard to religious matters in
the
context of freedom of thought, conscience and religion (see paragraph
13 (ii)
of Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation no. 1396 and paragraph 14 of
Recommendation no. 1720, paragraphs 26 and 27 above). In this
respect, it should be noted that, as the Court has held on numerous
occasions,
this freedom, in its religious dimension, is one of the most vital
elements
that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of
life, but
it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the
unconcerned (see Buscarini and
Others
v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I).
70. In the light of
the above,
the Court concludes that the instruction provided in the school subject
“religious culture and ethics” cannot be considered to meet the
criteria of
objectivity and pluralism and, more particularly in the applicants'
specific
case, to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of Ms
Zengin's
father, a follower of the Alevi faith, on the subject of which the
syllabus is
clearly lacking.
(b) As to whether
appropriate
means existed to ensure respect for parents' convictions
71. The Court
reiterates the
Contracting Parties' positive obligation under the second sentence of
Article 2
of Protocol No. 1, which gives parents the right to demand from the
State
respect for their religious and philosophical convictions in the
teaching of religion
(see Campbell and Cosans,
cited
above, § 37). Where a Contracting State includes religious instruction
in the
curriculum for study, it is then necessary, in so far as possible, to
avoid a
situation where pupils face a conflict between the religious education
give by
the school and the religious or philosophical convictions of their
parents. In
this connection, the Court notes that, with regard to religious
instruction in
Europe and in spite of the variety of teaching approaches, almost all
of the member
States offer at least one route by which pupils can opt out of
religious
education classes, by providing an exemption mechanism or the option of
attending a lesson in a substitute subject, or making attendance at
religious
studies classes entirely optional (see paragraph 34 above).
72. The Court notes
that,
under Article 24 of the Turkish Constitution, “religious culture and
ethics” is
one of the compulsory subjects. However, it appears that a possibility
for
exemption was introduced by the Supreme Council for Education's
decision of 9
July 1990 (see paragraph 18 above). According to that decision, only
children
“of Turkish nationality who belong to the Christian or Jewish religion”
have
the option of exemption, “provided they affirm their adherence to those
religions”.
73. The Court
considers at the
outset that, whatever the category of pupils concerned, the fact that
parents
must make a prior declaration to schools stating that they belong to
the
Christian or Jewish religion in order for their children to be exempted
from
the classes in question may also raise a problem under Article 9 of the
Convention (see, mutatis mutandis,
Folgerř and Others, cited
above, § 97).
In this connection, it notes that, according to Article 24 of the
Turkish
Constitution, “no one shall be compelled ... to reveal religious
beliefs and
convictions...” (see paragraph 16 above). Furthermore, it reiterates
that it
has always stressed that religious convictions are a matter of
individual
conscience (see, inter alia,
Sofianopoulos and Others v. Greece
(dec.), nos. 1977/02, 1988/02 and 1997/02, ECHR 2002-X, and also, mutatis mutandis, Buscarini and Others, cited
above, § 39).
74. In addition,
the Supreme
Council for Education's decision provides for the possibility of
exemption to
solely two categories of pupils of Turkish nationality, namely those
whose
parents belong to the Christian or Jewish faiths. In the Court's
opinion, this
necessarily suggests that the instruction provided in this subject is
likely to
lead these categories of pupils to face conflicts between the religious
instruction given by the school and their parents' religious or
philosophical
convictions. Like the ECRI, the Court considers that this situation is
open to
criticism, in that “if this is indeed a course on the different
religious
cultures, there is no reason to make it compulsory for Muslim children
alone.
Conversely, if the course is essentially designed to teach the Muslim
religion,
it is a course on a specific religion and should not be compulsory, in
order to
preserve children's and their parents' religious freedoms” (see
paragraph 29
above).
75. The Court notes
that,
according to the Government, this possibility for exemption may be
extended to
other convictions if such a request is submitted (see paragraph 19
above).
Nonetheless, whatever the scope of this exemption, the fact that
parents are
obliged to inform the school authorities of their religious or
philosophical
convictions makes this an inappropriate means of ensuring respect for
their
freedom of conviction. In addition, in the absence of any clear text,
the
school authorities always have the option of refusing such requests, as
in Ms
Zengin's case (see paragraph 11 above).
76. In consequence,
the Court
considers that the exemption procedure is not an appropriate method and
does
not provide sufficient protection to those parents who could
legitimately
consider that the subject taught is likely to give rise in their
children to a
conflict of allegiance between the school and their own values. This is
especially so where no possibility for an appropriate choice has been
envisaged
for the children of parents who have a religious or philosophical
conviction
other than that of Sunni Islam, where the procedure for exemption is
likely to
subject the latter to a heavy burden and to the necessity of disclosing
their
religious or philosophical convictions in order to have their children
exempted
from the lessons in religion.
(c) Conclusion
77. Having regard
to the
foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a breach of the
applicants'
right under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
78. The applicants
also
alleged that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the
Convention,
which provides:
“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.”
79. Having regard
to its
finding of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (see
paragraph 77
above), the Court considers that no separate question arises under
Article 9.
III. APPLICATION OF
ARTICLES
41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION
80. Articles 41 and
46 of the
Convention provide:
Article 41
“If the Court finds that there
has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law
of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation
to be
made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the
injured
party.”
Article 46
“1. The High
Contracting
Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any
case to
which they are parties.
2. The final
judgment of the
Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall
supervise
its execution.”
A. Damage, costs
and expenses
81. The applicants
made no
claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage. On the
other hand, they claimed the sum of 3,726.80 euros (EUR) jointly
to cover
their costs and expenses and the fees corresponding to the work carried
out on
the case. They submitted a fees agreement and bills.
82. In the
Government's view,
the question of just satisfaction did not arise, since the applicants'
complaints were manifestly unfounded.
83. Having regard
to the
applicants' position, the Court considers that the finding of a
violation with
regard to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 constitutes in itself
sufficient
just satisfaction for the damage they sustained. As to the costs and
expenses,
it considers that the applicants' claim under this head is not
excessive and
awards them the entirety of the amount claimed, less the EUR 850
granted in
legal aid.
84. The Court also
observes
that it has found in this case a violation of the Convention on account
of the
inadequacy of the Turkish educational system, which, with regard to
religious
instruction, does not meet the requirements of objectivity and
pluralism and
provides no appropriate method for ensuring respect for parents'
convictions.
These conclusions in themselves imply that the violation of the
applicants'
rights, as guaranteed by the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol
No. 1,
originates in a problem related to implementation of the syllabus for
this
class and the absence of appropriate methods for ensuring respect for
parents'
convictions. In consequence, the Court considers that bringing the
Turkish
educational system and domestic legislation into conformity with the
above-cited provision of the Convention
would
represent an appropriate form of compensation which would make it
possible to
end the violation found.
B. Default interest
85. The Court
considers it
appropriate to base the default interest on the marginal lending rate
of the
European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a
violation of
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1;
2. Holds that no separate
question arises
under Article 9 of the Convention;
3. Holds that the finding of a
violation
provides in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary
damage
sustained by the applicants;
4. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State
is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on
which
the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention,
EUR 3,726.80 (three thousand seven hundred and twenty-six euros, eighty
cents)
in respect of costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 850 granted in
legal aid,
plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into new Turkish
liras at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the
expiry of
the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall
be
payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points.
Done in French, and notified
in writing
on 9 October 2007 pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
F. Elens-Passos J.-P. Costa Deputy
Registrar President
1. The majority of Turkey’s
population follows the Hanafite theological school’s moderate
interpretation of
Islam.
2. Hanafism is one
of the four
theological schools of Sunni Islam.
HASAN AND EYLEM ZENGİN v. TURKEY
JUDGMENT
HASAN AND EYLEM ZENGİN v. TURKEY
JUDGMENT