Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 127
February 2010
Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey - 41135/98
Judgment 23.2.2010 [Section II]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Manifest religion or belief
Criminal conviction for wearing religious attire in public: violation
Facts –The applicants belong to a religious group. In October 1996 they met for a religious ceremony held at the mosque and toured the streets of the city wearing the distinctive dress of their group. Following various incidents on the same day, they were arrested and taken into police custody. In the context of criminal proceedings brought against them for breaching anti-terrorism legislation, they appeared before the National Security Court in January 1997 dressed in their group’s religious attire. Following that hearing, they were prosecuted for, among other things, refusing to remove their turbans after being warned by the bench. They were convicted in March 1997 and their appeals were unsuccessful.
Law – Article 9: The applicants had been convicted under legislation prohibiting the wearing of certain clothing in public areas that were open to everyone, and the time and place of the offences were not limited to the incidents during the hearing in the National Security Court, but mainly corresponded to an earlier period between October 1996 and January 1997. The Court thus found it established that the applicants had not received criminal convictions for indiscipline or lack of respect before the National Security Court, but rather for their manner of dressing in public areas that were open to everyone (such as the public highway). As members of a religious group, the applicants believed that their religion required them to dress in that manner. Their conviction for having worn the clothing in question fell within the ambit of Article 9. Accordingly, the Turkish courts’ decisions had amounted to interference with the applicants’ freedom of conscience and religion, the legal basis for which was not contested (the law on the wearing of headgear and regulations on the wearing of certain clothing in public). In so far as the interference was meant to ensure respect for secular and democratic principles, it pursued a number of legitimate aims: the protection of public safety, the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. However, the applicants were ordinary citizens. Not being representatives of the State engaged in public service, they could not be bound, on account of any official status, by a duty of discretion in the public expression of their religious beliefs. Moreover, the applicants had been punished for wearing particular clothing in public areas that were open to all, such as the public highway. Regulations on the wearing of religious symbols in public establishments, where religious neutrality might take precedence over the right to manifest one’s religion, did not therefore apply. In addition, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the manner in which the applicants had manifested their beliefs by their specific attire represented or might have represented a threat for public order or a form of pressure on others. Nor had it been shown that they had sought to exert inappropriate pressure on passers-by on the public highway in order to promote their religious beliefs. In the opinion of the Religious Affairs Directorate, their movement was limited in size and was merely a curiosity, and the clothing worn by them did not represent any religious power or authority that was recognised by the State. Accordingly, the necessity for the disputed restriction had not been convincingly established. The interference with the applicants’ freedom to manifest their beliefs had not been based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 9.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: EUR 10 to each of the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage; finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy