Leyla Sahin v. Turkey
European Court of Human Rights
App. No. 44774/98 (2005)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
Leyla Sahin (plaintiff), a practicing Muslim, was a medical student at Istanbul University (the university) in Turkey. The university instituted a policy banning headscarves, among other things. During this time, there was a contentious political climate in Turkey due to extremism, and Muslim headscarves were seen by some as a political symbol related to Muslim extremism. Based on Sahin’s wearing of a headscarf, Sahin was subsequently prohibited from lectures, exams, and class enrollments and was suspended for a year. Sahin filed an application to set aside the university’s ban on headscarves, alleging, in part, that the ban violated her freedom of religion pursuant to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention), which provides that one’s right to manifest one’s religion may only be limited by law as necessary for public interest. The Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the application, holding that—consistent with the values of secularism and gender equality embodied within Turkey’s constitution—the university had the authority to regulate students’ dress to maintain order. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ultimately accepted Sahin’s request for an appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wildhaber, C.J.)
Dissent (Tulkens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
