TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): On ne demande pas l'atteinte d'un résultat coûte que coûte.
AP2 (Applicant): C'est une obligation de moyens, mettre en oeuvre les moyens raisonnablement exigibles pour pouvoir oeuvrer à la cessation du traitement inhumain et dégradant.
AP2 (Applicant): La protection consulaire peut être un moyen en la matière.
AP2 (Applicant): L'enjeu de la présente requête n'est pas de savoir s'il faut affirmer de manière générale et abstraite l'existence d'un droit subjectif à la protection consulaire dans tous les mondes possibles, mais de simplement de savoir s'il s'agit ici d'un moyen dont il aurait pu être exigé qu'il soit mieux mis en oeuvre pour honorer l'obligation positive, qui est à relire également à la lumière des textes de droit humanitaire pertinents.
AP2 (Applicant): La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme ne s'interprète pas dans le vide, et notamment les conventions de Genève et leurs protocoles peuvent être, s'ils sont applicables en la matière, pertinents en la matière pour interpréter la Convention, comme l'a dit la Cour dans l'arrêt Hassan contre le Royaume-Uni.
AP2 (Applicant): Derrière-élément concernant l'article 3 du protocole additionnel numéro 4, dont finalement personne ne conteste réellement qu'il puisse avoir une portée extraterritoriale, faute de quoi il n'aurait aucun sens, consacre-t-il potentiellement une obligation positive?
AP2 (Applicant): Le gouvernement français y a insisté, il n'y a pas de jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière, il faut donc se tourner vers les principes.
AP2 (Applicant): Les principes, ce sont ceux de l'arrêt Eiret de 1979.
AP2 (Applicant): Un obstacle de fait peut enfreindre la Convention à l'image d'un obstacle de droit et générer une obligation positive d'aider les requérants à surmonter l'obstacle de fait.
AP2 (Applicant): Deuxièmement, le libellé de l'article 3, paragraphe 2 du protocole additionnel numéro 4, qui est tout à fait particulier, nul ne peut se voir privé du droit, n'est pas exclusif d'une possibilité d'obligation positive.
AP2 (Applicant): Mutatis mutandis, c'est la même chose que pour le droit à l'instruction garantie par l'article 2 du premier protocole additionnel, nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit à l'instruction.
AP2 (Applicant): La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, dès l'affaire linguistique belge de 68, et puis par la suite dans l'affaire Sahin en 2004, a estimé que des obligations positives pouvaient en être.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, M. Van Drooghenbroeck.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Pardonnez-moi pour la confusion à tout à l'heure.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Je remercie les comparants qui ont assisté la Cour par leur intervention et leur réponse à ces questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sur la recevabilité et le fonds.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je vous prie de bien vouloir vous asseoir et je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur la recevabilité et le fonds de l'affaire Doğan et autres contre Turquie.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite devant la Cour le 31 août 2010 par des ressortissants turcs, comme monsieur İzzettin Doğan et 202 autres, en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La requête a été communiquée au gouvernement le 7 mai 2013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 25 novembre 2014, la Chambre a décidé de se désaisir au profit de la Grande Chambre.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement est représenté par monsieur Harun Mert, directeur général du département du droit international et des relations extérieures auprès du ministère de la Justice et par monsieur Hacı Ali Açıkgül, chef du département des droits de l'homme auprès du même ministère, conseil, assisté de monsieur Hikmet Yaman, monsieur Ahmet Metin Gökler, madame Ayça Onural, monsieur Sami Arslan Aşkın, Bekir Karaca et Mustafa Çiçek, conseiller.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les requérants sont représentés par maître Namık Sofuoğlu, avocat, madame İştar Savaşir, professeure à l'Université de Daugousse, conseil assisté de mesdames Serap Topçu, Fadime Kama, Jülide Sucuoğlu Gönen, Tülay Odabaş et monsieur İlyas Şahbaz et Mehmet Aydin, conseiller.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le requérant, monsieur İzzettin Doğan, est aussi présent.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je salue également les membres du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature de Turquie, les magistrats du réseau européen de formation judiciaire, les groupes de magistrats turcs et ukrainiens en visite à la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ayant consulté l'agent du gouvernement et les représentants des requérants, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement monsieur Açıkgül pour le gouvernement, puis maître Sofuoğlu et madame Savaşir pour les requérants.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je dois expliquer qu'en suce de l'interprétation dans les deux langues officielles de la Cour, l'anglais et le français, j'ai autorisé les avocats de la partie requérante à plaider en langue turque.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): En outre, l'interprétation en turc et ukrainien a été autorisée au profit d'un groupe de magistrats turcs et ukrainiens qui assistent à cette audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Et je donne la parole à monsieur Açıkgül.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, members of the Grand Chamber, Mr. Register,
GR1 (Government): ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
GR1 (Government): It's a privilege for me and my delegation to be able to appear before you on behalf of Turkish government.
GR1 (Government): I would like to briefly remind the request of the applicants and the process conducted at domestic level with a view to presenting our government's submissions more clearly.
GR1 (Government): The applicants request that religious services should be provided in the form of public services to Alevi and Bektashi citizens, that assembly houses, namely Cemeviz, should be granted to status of place of worship, that the persons who are considered as competent by Alevis should be employed in the capacity of public officials, and that funds should be allocated from the state budget for carrying out such services.
GR1 (Government): The applicants brought these requests to the attention of Prime Minister in the first place.
GR1 (Government): Upon rejection of their request, they filed an action for annulment before the National Court.
GR1 (Government): After the dismissal of this action in question, the applicants lodged the present application with the court.
GR1 (Government): In my pleading, first, I am going to lay emphasis on the applicants' definition of Alevism.
GR1 (Government): After that, I am going to try to respond to allegations within the scope of the freedom of religion and conscience and prohibition of discrimination.
GR1 (Government): In this context, I will analyze the applicants' concrete allegations as well as the negative and positive obligations of the state in the scope of Article 9.
GR1 (Government): Finally, within the framework of the prohibition of discrimination, I am going to focus on the issue of direct and indirect discrimination.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, in line with this outline,
GR1 (Government): I would like to start my pleading with the applicants' definition of Alevism.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, it is a known fact that there are many different views on Alevism.
GR1 (Government): Considering the absence of any consensus on the definition of Alevism, even among Alevis, the situation becomes more important.
GR1 (Government): In accordance with the principle of neutrality and impartiality of the state towards all beliefs, as referred to in many judgments of the court, such as Hassan and Chauch versus Bulgaria and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia versus Moldova, we believe that neither our government nor your court is entitled to define what Alevism is.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the essential point in the examination of the present application is the applicants' own definition of their faith.
GR1 (Government): The present application should be examined in light of this definition.
GR1 (Government): In this respect, it must be emphasized that our government has paid special attention not to make any definition of Alevism in all stages of this application.
GR1 (Government): In their petition filed with the Prime Minister of Turkey in 2005, the applicants defined Alevism as a Sufi and rational interpretation of Islam.
GR1 (Government): In other words, the applicants accept that Alevism is one of the Sufi interpretations of Islam.
GR1 (Government): In view of this definition, I would like to draw the court's attention to the fact that, according to the applicants, Alevism is not a religion independent from Islam.
GR1 (Government): On the contrary, it is an interpretation of Islam.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, I will make my following legal assessment in line with the definition in question.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, I would like to proceed
GR1 (Government): with our government's assessment as to the applicants' allegations.
GR1 (Government): The applicants complained under Article 9 of the Convention that, unlike Sunni citizens, Alevis are not provided with religious public services.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, they claim that the state has not fulfilled its negative and positive obligations on the grounds of dismissal of the action at domestic level.
GR1 (Government): At the outset, our government believes that there has been no interference with the applicants' right to freedom of religion.
GR1 (Government): In other words, the applicants can freely gather together and perform their practices.
GR1 (Government): No restriction has been imposed on them in this regard.
GR1 (Government): As noted in the court's judgment in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow versus Russia, there has been no interference in respect of the state's negative obligations.
GR1 (Government): The government did not desolate assembly houses.
GR1 (Government): It did not block their bank accounts, nor did it ban their activities.
GR1 (Government): This fact has been acknowledged by the applicants in their petition of reply filed with the National Court as well.
GR1 (Government): In the application form, the applicants have submitted certain allegations within the scope of the state's positive obligations.
GR1 (Government): As indicated in the court's case law, Article 9 of the Convention doesn't require a different status or privilege to be granted to religious groups compared to other groups.
GR1 (Government): However, if the state has granted such status or privilege, it must be ensured that all the groups in the inobjectively similar statuses also enjoy these rights in accordance with the principle of impartiality.
GR1 (Government): Now, I will assess the applicants' allegations in light of this fundamental principle.
GR1 (Government): The applicants first allege that in the calendars prepared by the Directorate of Religious Affairs, iftar and sahur times are set for the month of Ramadan, while there is no such timetable for the month of Muharram.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in these calendars, there is no difference according to month, neither in respect of Ramadan and Muharram, nor in respect of other months.
GR1 (Government): As can be understood from the calendar pages, that has already been submitted to the case file, this allegation doesn't reflect the truth.
GR1 (Government): The applicants secondly claim that no service is provided to alawis during Muharram.
GR1 (Government): It must be underlined that the Directorate of Religious Affairs does provide certain services during Muharram, and this matter was explained in statistical data, which was submitted to case file.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to applicants' allegations, the Directorate especially and intentionally so promotes the topics of Muharram and Ashura during sermons and preaches in all corners of Turkey.
GR1 (Government): In the occasion of Muharram month and Ashura day, many activities have been performed, such as delivering preaches and sermons, believing of fast, reciting Quran and Mawlid, and offering Ashura.
GR1 (Government): Alawi, Bektashi non-governmental organizations also have attended such activities.
GR1 (Government): The applicants further allege that there are many faculties of theology, but no faculty of Sufism in Turkey.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, our government would like to note that there indeed exist departments of Sufism in all faculties of theology.
GR1 (Government): In fact, the Department of Sufism is one of the obligatory departments of the faculties of theology.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, the faculties of theology were not founded to train Sunni clergymen.
GR1 (Government): When we look at their academic structure and curriculum, we can easily see that faculty of theology in Turkey provides a comprehensive education in religious and philosophical academic studies.
GR1 (Government): These faculties offer regular courses on denominational groups within Islam.
GR1 (Government): In this context, we see courses on classical and contemporary religious trends within Islam that include Alawism as well.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, these faculties integrate traditional and modern intellectual studies on Islam and other religions of the world.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, the applicants further
GR1 (Government): maintain that assembly houses are not recognized as places of worship.
GR1 (Government): As known in the case of Cumhuriyet Eğitim ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfı, which was a similar application, the court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the convention, taken together with the Article 9 on the ground of the refusal to grant assembly houses, exemption from paying electricity bills.
GR1 (Government): In my view, it is of great importance for the development of the court's case law that the same issue is being addressed this time by the Grand Chamber on the occasion of the present application.
GR1 (Government): First of all, I would like to draw the court's attention to the fact that in Turkey, the places belonging to any Sufi interpretation, including Mavleviye, founded by globally known Rumi, are not recognized as places of worship.
GR1 (Government): I will try to provide detailed legal reasons for this in the course of my pleading.
GR1 (Government): The applicants acknowledge that Alevi'sm is a Sufi interpretation and practice of Islam.
GR1 (Government): The places where the followers of Alevi'sm practice their manners and perform their ceremonies are not recognized as a place of worship.
GR1 (Government): This is the case not only for the places belonging to Alevi'sm, but also for all other places belonging to Sufi orders.
GR1 (Government): At this point, the applicants particularly complain about the rejection of their request from the Directorate of Religious Affairs to grant the status of place of worship to assembly houses.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, the Directorate doesn't have such an authority or power.
GR1 (Government): This is because the Directorate is within the administrative organization of the state, and its making any definition in this regard will be incompatible with Article 9 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Thus, an important issue arises here at this very point.
GR1 (Government): Which authority will determine whether a place can be considered as a place of worship or not?
GR1 (Government): This question is of great importance in respect of both the present application and similar application that could be lodged with the court in the future.
GR1 (Government): There is no doubt that this question has two fundamental aspects.
GR1 (Government): One is legal.
GR1 (Government): The other is theological.
GR1 (Government): Since the applicants accept Alevi'sm as a Sufi interpretation of Islam, we argue that this issue cannot be legally settled unless the status of Sufi'sm, Alevi'sm, and assembly houses in Islam are clearly and distinctively understood.
GR1 (Government): This is so because any interpretation that has similar theological status must be subjected to the same legal provisions.
GR1 (Government): In examining similar issues, the court has not completely disregarded the theological aspect of the case.
GR1 (Government): For example, in the case of Fernandez-Martinez versus Spain, the grand chamber held that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life on account of his failure to conform to religious requirements was not disproportionate and fell within the state's margin of appreciation.
GR1 (Government): Likewise, the same issue was also examined in the case of Avedo versus UK.
GR1 (Government): According to this judgment, in order to count as a manifestation within the meaning of Article IX, the act in question must be intimately linked to the religion or belief.
GR1 (Government): An example would be an act of worship or devotion which forms part of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognized form.
GR1 (Government): At this point, I would like to state that Professor Hikmet Yaman is also present in our delegation in order to provide information about the possible questions of the honorable members of the court concerning similar Sufi structures within Islam in Turkey.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, in Turkey, assembly houses
GR1 (Government): are constructed in the status of association or foundation, as is the case with other Sufi schools.
GR1 (Government): The places of worship of a religion must be distinguished from the places where the followers of that religion perform the traditional, educational, social, cultural, as well as mystical activities.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, the places where the followers of Sufi schools practice their manners and perform their ceremonies are not recognized as places of worship.
GR1 (Government): Undoubtedly, this does not mean that the construction of such places is absolutely forbidden in law.
GR1 (Government): In today's practice, there is no interference with the places in question.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the applicants are freely able to construct assembly houses, not in the status of place of worship, though.
GR1 (Government): And they can freely perform their practices in these venues.
GR1 (Government): This is indicated by the fact that, according to the official statistics, the number of assembly houses in Turkey is 1,151, and even more.
GR1 (Government): At this point, you may ask, why the law number 677 is still in force?
GR1 (Government): Although this law requires the closure of Dervish Lodge and Zawiye, but considering the provisions of international treaties that we ratified, this law has not been applied.
GR1 (Government): The most obvious example of this is the fact that assembly houses continue to carry out their functions.
GR1 (Government): In other words, at the present time, no place where the followers of Sufi schools perform their practices is closed down on the basis of this law.
GR1 (Government): In the current legal practice, the closure of places for manners and ceremonies, and even the punishment for those who construct such places, are not compatible with the requirements of a democratic society.
GR1 (Government): Following all these developments, the followers of all Sufi schools, including the applicants, can freely gather together and perform their practices.
GR1 (Government): But it cannot be understood that they will be granted the status of place of worship.
GR1 (Government): These two situations are different from one another, and I will explain this issue in the next part of my pleading.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President and honorable members of the Grand Chamber,
GR1 (Government): the status of place of worship is granted to common place of worship of the followers of each religion in our country.
GR1 (Government): Namely, synagogues and temples for Jews, churches for Christians, and mosques for Muslims are legally recognized as the place of worship.
GR1 (Government): Thus, in the examination of the present application, it should not be ignored that all Sufi structures in similar statuses are treated similarly and equally.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the issue of whether to grant the status of place of worship to assembly houses is closely linked to the situation of the places belonging to other Sufi schools.
GR1 (Government): At this point, the places belonging to Sufi schools, such as Sema House of Mevlevi's, Tewit House of Qadri's, Halweti's, and Rufai's, or dervish lodges of other Sufi schools, must be taken into account in all assessment and studies.
GR1 (Government): In view of the applicant's definition of Alevism, it is evident that there is no difference between assembly houses and places belonging to other Sufi orders.
GR1 (Government): In the subsequent process in Turkey, all other Sufi orders in the same status may also submit similar requests.
GR1 (Government): And this will indeed cause serious problems concerning the public orders.
GR1 (Government): In particular, granting the status of place of worship to all of the places belonging to Sufi orders in Turkey, the number of these places is not known for certain, may be considered as one of these problems.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the state legally grants this status only to the places that are commonly and widely recognized as places of worship by the followers of each religion.
GR1 (Government): Our government would like to reiterate that this justification is objective and reasonable and falls within the margin of appreciation of the state.
GR1 (Government): In my view, as noted in the judgment of the Grand Chamber in the case of Fernandez Martinez versus Spain, particular importance must be attached to the margin of appreciation afforded to the state, national authorities, in the issue of large-scale debate concerning the relations between state and religions.
GR1 (Government): Before addressing the issue of discrimination, I will make a brief assessment as to the applicant's request that the persons who are considered as competent by Alevis should be employed in the capacity of public officials.
GR1 (Government): According to the Constitution, every Turkish citizen has a right to enter public service.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, in the official recruitment process into public service, only the general and objective rules are taken into consideration.
GR1 (Government): It is not possible for certain persons to be granted privilege and recruited on the basis of their faiths, denominations, religious beliefs, and practices.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, in the next part of my pleading,
GR1 (Government): I am going to make assessment as to the applicant's allegations within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination.
GR1 (Government): As known, the applicants allege that they have been discriminated against on the basis of religion, since they have been subjected to less favorable treatment compared to the Sunni citizens.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the applicant's allegations of discrimination constitute an important aspect of the present application.
GR1 (Government): First of all, our government is in the opinion that Alevism and Sunnism are not comparable with each other in the context of court's case law.
GR1 (Government): In other words, the subjects of the comparison are different.
GR1 (Government): In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 of the Convention, the subjects of the comparison must be similar or comparable.
GR1 (Government): As explained in a very detailed way in our written observations, in view of the applicant's definition of Islam, it is not an appropriate approach to make a comparison between Alevism and Sunnism.
GR1 (Government): If it is absolutely necessary, rather than overall comparison between Alevism and Sunnism, it would be more appropriate to make a comparison between Alevism and other Sufi schools.
GR1 (Government): This is because Alevism is a Sufi interpretation as defined by applicants themselves.
GR1 (Government): And therefore, it must be compared with similar formations.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, in the context of the sociological reality of Islam, denominations and Sufi schools are different formations, and their comparison wouldn't be appropriate.