PROCEDURE

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.

The applicants were granted legal aid.

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.

In a decision of 6 June 2006, the Chamber declared the application admissible.

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

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

Hasan Zengin stated that his family were adherents of Alevism.

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 Sunni schools of law in certain aspects such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage.

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 Hanafite 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

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.

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.”

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.

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...”

The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment, relying, inter alia, on the Convention.

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.