TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): Zira kuruma göre bu iki grup arasında bazı yerel örf ve inanışlarla ayrıntıya ilişkin meseleler dışında dini konularda herhangi bir farklılık söz konusu değil.
AP2 (Applicant): Oysa Alevilik, Nusayrilik, Ezidilik gibi kültürel dini oluşumları egemen Ortodoks İslami kategorilere uydurmak zor.
AP2 (Applicant): Diyanet İslam alt gruplarının üstünde objektif bir pozisyon aldığını iddia ediyor.
AP2 (Applicant): Ama iddia edilen bu pozisyon tarafsız ve objektif değil.
AP2 (Applicant): Bütün Müslümanların ibadet yeri camidir iddiası da bunu açıkça gösteriyor.
AP2 (Applicant): Nusayrilerin, Ezidilerin, Alevilerin geleneksel ibadet yeri cami değil.
AP2 (Applicant): Demek ki ya bu gruplar Müslüman değil ya da Diyanet'in İslam anlayışı tarafsızlıktan uzak.
AP2 (Applicant): Burada hukuken önemli olan kamu hizmeti kaldı.
AP2 (Applicant): Daha önce belirttiğim gibi Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde din hizmetleri hem 1961 hem mevcut 1982 anayasalarında Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı'nın düzenlenmiş olduğu madde dolayısıyla bir kamu hizmeti olarak düzenlenmiş durumda.
AP2 (Applicant): Kamu hizmetinin sunulmasında da en önemli husus eşitlik meselesi.
AP2 (Applicant): Yani tüm vatandaşlara ayrımsız sunulması.
AP2 (Applicant): Bu meseleye Türkiye Cumhuriyeti nüfusunun aşağı yukarı üçte birini oluşturan yani 25-30 milyonluk Alevi vatandaşlar açısından baktığımızda din alanında hiçbir hizmet alınmadığını görüyoruz.
AP2 (Applicant): Tüm vatandaşlar gibi Aleviler de vergi yükümlülüklerini yerine getiriyor ama Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı'na ayrılan dev bütçeden hiçbir paya sahip değiller.
AP2 (Applicant): Bu bütçe sünni-anefi anlayışa sahip din adamlarını yetiştirilip istihdam edilmesinde kullanılıyor.
AP2 (Applicant): Bu amaçla özellikle mevcut iktidar döneminde her gün sayıları artan imam hatip liseleri mevcut ama dede yani Alevi din adamı yetiştiren tek bir okul yok.
AP2 (Applicant): Yani Alevilere hiçbir din hizmeti sağlanmıyor.
AP2 (Applicant): Bu açık bir diskrimasyon ve restriksiyon.
AP2 (Applicant): Milli Eğitim Bakanlığında okullarda sünni İslam'ın öğretilmesi, sünni İslam'ın öğretilmesi faaliyetini yürüten Din Öğretimi Genel Müdürlüğü var.
AP2 (Applicant): Ama Alevi vatandaşlar, üstelik bu konu bu hususta kesinleşmiş Yüce Mahkemenizin ikinci daire kararına rağmen çocuklarının kendi inançlarının öğretilmesi hakkını kullanamıyorlar.
AP2 (Applicant): Bu da açık bir diskrimasyon ve restriksiyon.
AP2 (Applicant): Burada önemli olan Alevilerin hiçbir ayrıcılık, hiçbir imtiyaz talep etmemesi ama ortada devlet tarafından sunulan bir kamu hizmeti varsa buna tüm vatandaşlar eşit olarak ulaşmalılar.
AP2 (Applicant): Devlet bir dini anlayışa hizmet sunuyorsa bir diğerine de eşit ve ayrımsız olarak sunmakla yükümlü.
AP2 (Applicant): Oysa Türkiye Cumhuriyeti uygulamasında Alevi vatandaşların bu bakımdan yok hükmünde sayılmakta olduğunu görüyoruz.
AP2 (Applicant): Teşekkür ederim.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Qui veut poser une question?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le juge Mark Villiger.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I have a question to both parties.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I have heard today and read previously in the document the term status, the status of religious faiths in Turkey.
Mark Villiger (Judge): There has been talk of official status and talk of legal status, "statut juridique".
Mark Villiger (Judge): On the other hand, I have heard that Turkey is a secular state.
Mark Villiger (Judge): There is not even a registration of faiths in Turkey.
Mark Villiger (Judge): So I am a bit confused about the use of status as regards religious faiths in Turkey.
Mark Villiger (Judge): And I would be glad if the parties could enlighten me.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Madame la juge Laffranque maintenant.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): I have altogether four questions that I would like to put.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Two of them, first of all, for the applicants.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Could you provide some more description on the specific religious needs for the Alevi faith and the manner in which those needs are met and managed, would be my first question.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): And the second question, in practice, what are the implications of this rejection of your request by the authorities?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): What are the practical implications on the religious practice of your faith ever since that your request has been rejected by the authorities?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Could you give us some concrete examples on this?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): For example, what is the status of Alevi dignitaries, and are there any difficulties?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): We heard a little bit about it, but I would like you to elaborate it regarding the building of cemevis in Turkey at the moment.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Now for the government.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Your government has submitted, and you have mentioned this today in the hearing, that between June 2009 and January 2010, seven Alevi workshops were organized in Turkey with a view to examining questions relating to the Alevi community in the context of the Alevi initiative.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): And the final report of these workshops was adopted following those meetings and presented by the Prime Minister.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): And this report lists the measures that the state should consider for social peace.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): I'm referring in particular to 30 subchapters, pages 189 until 194 of the report.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Since 2010, what are the concrete measures that have been adopted following these roundtables?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): The applicant party may also comment on this issue.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): We have heard so far today at the hearing only about the changes in the curriculum of the religious culture and ethics courses or classes, which even more need to be improved after the judgment of this court, Mansur Yalçın versus Turkey.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): But what are the other, if any, concrete measures that have been adopted since then?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): And my final question, Mr. President, would be for two parties to answer.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): I have some difficulties understanding about the position of the law number 677 in Turkey, which actually ordered the closure of mystical tradition places and made it an offense to provide venues for ceremonies by mystical religion's orders.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): It also prohibited the use of certain titles connected with those institutions, such as dede, which we have heard today, the title used by the Alevi spiritual leaders, and the practices linked to those titles.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): I also note that actually the administrative court in its decision of 4th of June 2007 cited this law without drawing any conclusions about it.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): But you have mentioned the government's representatives today that this law has not been applied, but the law exists.
Julia Laffranque (Judge): What is the relationship between the legal certainty in this respect?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): Could we consider that this law could be the main obstacle, legal obstacle, in recognizing a status for cemevis or the religious practices of the Alevi community?
Julia Laffranque (Judge): So if you could provide me a little bit more clarification on that.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Madame La juge Motoc.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): J'ai une question à poser aux deux partis.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Sans doute que, comme les partis ont affirmé, il ne s'agit pas aujourd'hui pour nous de faire un débat théologique.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Mais quand même, dans la doctrine, il y a beaucoup de différences concernant les définitions d'alévisme.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Je voulais savoir exactement où les deux partis se situent par rapport à ces définitions qui existent dans la doctrine concernant l'alévisme.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Et vous le savez très bien que, dans le fameux livre écrit par Massikar, qui se réfère aux alévies en Turquie et en Europe, Massikar définit l'alévisme comme un phénomène religieux, mais aussi, il dit à un certain moment qu'alévisme peut être interprété comme une pratique qui est pour la défense de la démocratie.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Dans le même livre, il affirme que l'alévisme aussi, il a des éléments qui viennent de zoroastrisme, il vient de chamanisme, donc pas seulement de soufisme qu'ici a été invoqué par les deux partis.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Donc voilà une vision d'un livre qui, quand même, domine aujourd'hui la compréhension religieuse de l'alévisme.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Il y a aussi un autre livre qui est important, écrit par Hargrave Jennings, qui parle aussi de l'alévisme et cette fois-ci, il lit l'alévisme en question de musulmans chias.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Donc voilà, il combine aussi les pratiques chias, comme Jennings dit, avec des autres pratiques qui viennent des autres religions musulmanes.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Et je voulais savoir exactement, parce qu'il semble qu'il y a des différences, même si notre débat, je répète encore une fois, n'est pas un débat théologique, comment est-ce que vous vous placez par rapport à ces définitions qui existent dans la doctrine?
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Ma deuxième question est liée surtout au gouvernement.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Parce que le gouvernement nous avait expliqué quelles mesures sont prises concernant cette protection des minorités en Turquie.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): On a beaucoup parlé ici sur le traité de Lausanne et quelles sont les minorités qui ont été reconnues par le traité de Lausanne et quelles sont les minorités qui n'ont pas été reconnues par le traité de Lausanne et quelles sont les conséquences sur ces minorités.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Je voulais savoir comment est-ce que le gouvernement se place aujourd'hui par rapport aux rapports qui ont été formulés, pas seulement par la Commission de Venise, que vous êtes au courant, mais aussi par rapport aux rapports qui sont formulés par la Commission européenne très récemment, en 2011, en 2012, en 2013.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Et ces rapports tous, ils parlent sur la question de discrimination par rapport aux minorités qui sont musulmanes en Turquie.
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Judge): Et je voulais savoir quelles mesures vous pensez prendre par rapport à tout ce type de rapports qui existent.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le juge Sajó.
András Sajó (Judge): I would like to ask the government concerning the scholarly opinion submitted to the court.
András Sajó (Judge): In this distinguished document on page one, the following statement is to be found.
András Sajó (Judge): According to the general classification accepted within religious studies, religious groups consist of three primary structures, namely religions, sects, and mystical formations.
András Sajó (Judge): And then this is used throughout the whole document and probably reflects an underlying consideration for the way religious groups are considered.
András Sajó (Judge): And there, this is a system kind of hierarchy.
András Sajó (Judge): Now, my question concerns only the first, the third, the fourth and fifth words.
András Sajó (Judge): This is a general classification accepted within religious studies.
András Sajó (Judge): It's not a question about theology.
András Sajó (Judge): It's about a question on structures.
András Sajó (Judge): And it is very surprising to read this.
András Sajó (Judge): There are no footnotes.
András Sajó (Judge): And it is common knowledge that, at least in the English-speaking world, churches and sects are not treated the way it is here, beginning with Max Weber, if I'm not mistaken.
András Sajó (Judge): I mean, this is common knowledge.
András Sajó (Judge): The two are just different because of inclusiveness and intensity.
András Sajó (Judge): And this was then taken up by Truch.
András Sajó (Judge): And then last time I had to deal with these matters, the prevailing position was Stark and Bainbridge, who concluded that this distinction empirically is not sustainable anymore because it is a total overlap, a matter of gradation.
András Sajó (Judge): It's not two distinct categories.
András Sajó (Judge): And anyway, even if distinct, as it's in the ideal type of Weber, they are not in a relationship of hierarchy.
András Sajó (Judge): So once again, my question is related to the structures, not theology.
András Sajó (Judge): We are not dealing here with theology.
András Sajó (Judge): There was general understanding in that regard.
András Sajó (Judge): It's about organization of religious life.
András Sajó (Judge): And I just wonder how the statement here, that this is an accepted typology, fits into what I thought so far is at least a most respected approach in structuring, in understanding religious structures, namely Max Weber until Stark.
András Sajó (Judge): So my question is how your position fits into that tradition.
András Sajó (Judge): So is this really the only possible consideration of the problem?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup Madame la Juge Karakaş.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): J'ai d'abord 2 questions pour le gouvernement.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Ça concerne l'arrêt du tribunal administratif du 4 juillet 2007.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, dans cette décision, le tribunal administratif d'Ankara a rejeté la demande des requérants pour 2 motifs.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Tout d'abord, il a considéré que le refus de l'administration opposée aux demandes des requérants était conforme à la législation.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, en vertu de la Constitution, article 136 de la Constitution, la direction des affaires religieuses, qui fait partie de l'administration générale, remplit les fonctions qui lui sont confiées en vertu de la loi spécifique, conformément aux principes de laïcité.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): De même, selon l'article 1er de la loi 633, la direction des affaires religieuses est chargée de traiter des affaires religieuses dans le domaine des croyances, du culte et de la morale de l'islam.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, vu ces deux dispositions, on peut considérer que la direction est chargée de fournir un service religieux à l'ensemble des musulmans, y compris aux personnes adhérentes à d'autres ou diverses interprétations de l'islam.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, comment expliquez-vous que le tribunal a jugé le refus de l'administration de la demande des requérants conforme à la législation en vigueur?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): En deuxième lieu, le tribunal a précisé qu'il n'était pas possible de donner une suite favorable à la demande des requérants sans revoir la législation.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Est-ce que la législation doit être modifiée pour satisfaire aux demandes des requérants?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Et dans l'affirmative, si oui, alors dans quel sens?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Ma deuxième question pour le gouvernement concerne l'avis de la Commission de Venise, adopté en 2014.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): C'est un avis qui concerne les lignes directrices sur la personnalité juridique des communautés religieuses.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, dans cet avis, la Commission de Venise a essayé d'établir un document de référence énonçant les normes internationales minimales en matière de justice et minimales en matière de reconnaissance des communautés religieuses ou de convictions.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, je voudrais savoir la position du gouvernement vis-à-vis de cet avis.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Ma deuxième question concerne les deux parties, alors pour les requérants aussi.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): On a abordé ce sujet, mais il faut préciser de plus.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Les services religieux relatifs à la religion musulmane ont le statut de service public en Turquie.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Donc, par conséquent, le service public religieux dépend du régime juridique du service public en général.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Donc, comment peut-on concilier ce système avec le principe d'égalité devant le service public et le principe de neutralité du service public toujours?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, Madame Karakaş.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Maintenant M. le Juge Spano.
Robert Spano (Judge): My question is prompted by the relative silence of the government towards the already existing case law of the court.
Robert Spano (Judge): This is not the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights has dealt with the Alevi community in Turkey.
Robert Spano (Judge): As mentioned by the applicants, in December, the second section of this court gave judgment in the case of Kumur Yeci.
Robert Spano (Judge): If I recall correctly, the government requested a referral of this case to the Grand Chamber.
Robert Spano (Judge): This was rejected in April.
Robert Spano (Judge): In this case, as correctly mentioned by the applicant, the second section found that the cemevi Center in Yenibosna should have been considered in the same way as other recognized places of worship, a place of worship of the religious conviction involved.
Robert Spano (Judge): The reason I ask this is that one of the four concrete demands which are before this court in this case, and perhaps the most concrete one, which was rejected by the administrative tribunal for reasons related to law number 633 and Article 128 of the Constitution, was the impossibility of recognizing the cemevi as a place of worship.
Robert Spano (Judge): And in the judgment in Kumur Yeci, the legal consequences of such non-recognitions are presented.
Robert Spano (Judge): So my question is this.
Robert Spano (Judge): Is the government here today inviting the Grand Chamber to re-examine the assessment made and the findings of the second section, which were not brought before the Grand Chamber?
Robert Spano (Judge): And I would ask that a position on this issue be made as clear as possible.
Robert Spano (Judge): And if so, does the government then reject the findings of the second section?
Robert Spano (Judge): And on what basis?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci. Maintenant, M. le juge Paul Lemmens.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Je voudrais également poser une question, surtout au gouvernement, mais les requérants peuvent répondre aussi, une question qui est suscitée par le jugement du tribunal d'Ankara, le tribunal administratif d'Ankara, qui a rejeté la demande des requérants en disant, à la fin de son jugement notamment, que si l'État répondait sous la forme d'un service public à chacune des attentes et des demandes des requérants, alors il y aurait un risque de distance avec le principe de l'État laïc et un risque que les libertés de religion et de croyance seraient réduites, seraient limitées, de sorte que la paix civile serait mise en péril.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Est-ce que le gouvernement est d'accord avec ce point de vue du tribunal?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Et est-ce qu'il pourrait expliquer en quoi consisterait surtout le risque pour la jouissance de liberté de religion et de croyance quand on va donner précisément à une tendance qui s'appelle une religion des avantages qu'on donne aussi à une autre tendance?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous allons maintenant faire une pause jusqu'à 11 h, vu le grand nombre de questions qui ont été posées.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On va donc se retrouver à 11 h. L'audience est suspendue.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'audience est reprise et si je peux demander d'éteindre la musique, s'il vous plaît.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Alors, je donne la parole à monsieur Açıkgül.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President and honorable members of the court.
GR1 (Government): There are many questions, and most of them are so comprehensive that requires time, actually, as you know.
GR1 (Government): And if the courts allow us to submit written observation, some of that question, we want to use some times.
GR1 (Government): We'll submit written observation, some of these questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): You are of course allowed to present, to precise your answers in a document, but it will be communicated also to the other party.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): You have 14 days to do that.
GR1 (Government): But I have some remarks, some of the questions.
GR1 (Government): First of all, as for the applicants' claim on the cost and expenses, we refuse the claim on the cost and expenses, and that was stated today at the hearing.
GR1 (Government): As for the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Courts, dated December 2014, we know that it's a binding, according to Article 46 of the Convention and Article 9 of our Constitution.
GR1 (Government): But in scope of this application, this issue has been brought to the Grand Chamber.
GR1 (Government): In that, that's why we consider that the Grand Chamber should reverse that judgment in scope of this application.
GR1 (Government): As for the Lausanne Treaties, actually, Alevis are not among the religious minorities which have been recognized by the Lausanne Treaties.
GR1 (Government): The issue at the Alevis is not within the scope of the Lausanne Treaties.
GR1 (Government): As for the concrete outcome of the Alevi workshop held in 2009 and 2010, it is actually a very sensitive and longstanding issue.
GR1 (Government): But I can say in this regard that after this workshop, as of 14 March 2015, the construction of Haci Bektasif Veli Anatolian High School has started.
GR1 (Government): In this school, there will be special courses on Alevism, including the life and teachings of Ali, who is regarded by Alevis as their spiritual leader.
GR1 (Government): Additionally, courses will be offered to the love of Ehli Beyt, meaning the family of Prophet Muhammad, on eminent Sufis and their lives.
GR1 (Government): These courses on the Alevi Bektashi tradition will be taught by teachers and academics who are members of this tradition.
GR1 (Government): With the increasing number of these schools, the Alevi Bektashi tradition will be more widespread in our society.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, as regards to the question on classification of religious structure,
GR1 (Government): I would like to give the floor to Professor Hikmet Yaman.
GR1 (Government): He will explain the structure of religion in Turkey.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, the honorable judges,
GR2 (Government): unfortunately, the situation is innately related to theology, even though ideally you would like to get away from it.
GR2 (Government): I have two points to raise.
GR2 (Government): One is in relation to the question by Sajo from Hungary, Judge Sajo from Hungary.
GR2 (Government): And he says that this scholarly opinion discusses and reflects the official doctrine.
GR2 (Government): And actually, this definition is quite problematic, because in fact, there is no official doctrine in Islam.
GR2 (Government): You have the book, namely the Quran, and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, namely the Sunnah.
GR2 (Government): And there are collections of his sayings and his practices.
GR2 (Government): And any individual who are knowledgeable enough and competent in religious studies may express his or her own opinion on the basis of these two fundamental sources.
GR2 (Government): And in Alevi literature as well, it's full of the statements from the Quran and from the prophetic statement.
GR2 (Government): At the same time, since I have said there is no official doctrine in Islam, there is no notion of infallibility in Islam either.
GR2 (Government): So you hear an opinion, an interpretation.
GR2 (Government): You listen to it.
GR2 (Government): And you may have your own answer against that interpretation.
GR2 (Government): That is perfectly fine in doctrine.
GR2 (Government): And Alevis also, they follow Ali in their own way.
GR2 (Government): By the way, Ali is the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad and one of his best friends, companions.
GR2 (Government): And the same Ali is quite venerated and greatly respected figure by all Muslims in that regard.
GR2 (Government): I mean, we do not refer to the same structure, the different structures.
GR2 (Government): He is at the top of almost all, I mean, there are spiritual chains of authority in Sufi groups.
GR2 (Government): And his name stays at the top of almost all those groups as an authority in their teachings and their way.