Leyla Sahin v Turkey

Introduction

Turkish national, Leyla Sahin who lived and studied medicine in Vienna was born in 1973. As a religious duty of practicing Muslim and in accordance to her family's tradition, she always wore Islamic Headscarf.

Discussion

There is a tolerant attitude in UK for the pupils who wear religious clothes. Islamic head scarf are rare in these cases. There is a racial segregation in the educational institutions on the basis of cast, race and religion. Mandla v. Dowell is the major example of such cases. Another example of such type of discrimination is the case of Begum v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School. These are the cases in which people are being discriminated on the basis of their religious signs. Leyla Sahin v Turkey is an another significant example of such discrimination cases.

Leyla Sahin claimed that, the Turkish state has violated its articles 8 (the right to respect private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (Freedom of Expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) and Article 2 (right to education) of Protocol No. 1 (the Protocol) of the Convention, a move that prevented her from wearing the Muslim veil in the institutions of higher education. (Weisburd, Pp.31)

The circular was issued by the vice rector of the university, after Leyla had studied at that institution for 4 years without being forbidden to wear the Muslim veil. Because of this administrative regulation, the applicant was unable to enter some of the courses as she wore the veil. Moreover, part of a meeting of several students, who expressed their disagreement with this rule, they were awarded a penalty thanks to which she was expelled for a semester.

The applicant went to a variety of remedies available in domestic law against both the circular and the various punitive measures imposed on her without success.

The case went first to one of the Chambers of the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Right. The Chamber ruled that there was no violation of Article 9 of the Convention, and that does not follow any of the foregoing separate issue related to Articles 8, 10 and 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with 9 of the same order and in 2 of Protocol.

After this ruling of the Chamber, the applicant requested that the case was to be referred to the Upper Chamber. Leyla alleged that the Turkish State had violated Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 and 2 of the Convention. The Court began its proceedings by recounting what happened earlier in the lower courts, also outlining the relevant Turk constitutional articles. Subsequently the court conducted the historical study of Turkey's fashion and the principle of secularism, application of these rules to universities, disciplinary proceedings against students, and the authority of the school bodies. Finally, it made a comparative study of the regulation of Muslim headscarves in European countries, concluding that it is not possible to establish a general ...