Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Şahin v. Turkey

European Court of Human Rights
44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 99 (2005)


Facts

Leyla Şahin (plaintiff), a Turkish national, was a practicing Muslim and believed it was her religious duty to wear an Islamic headscarf. Şahin studied medicine in Turkey at the Bursa University. After Şahin had been studying medicine for five years there, the Vice Chancellor of the university issued a new regulation that all students wearing head coverings, including Islamic headscarves, would be denied admission to classes, lectures, and examinations. This regulation was based on a decision by the Constitutional Court of Turkey that permitting students to wear religious headscarves in educational institutions was inconsistent with principles in the Turkish Constitution requiring education to be administered in a religiously-neutral manner. Şahin was informed of this regulation but continued to wear her headscarf. As a result, she was denied admission to two examinations. Following this, she left Turkey and finished her medical studies in Vienna. Şahin brought suit against the government of Turkey (defendant) on the ground that the decision of its Constitutional Court (and the resulting university regulation) violated her right to manifest her religion, protected by Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention). Under this provision, freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs “shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Tulkens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.