Journals / Human Rights Review / 2018 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 14

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE ECtHR ON ISLAMIC HEADSCARVES AND RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

AİHM’nin Başörtüsü ve Dini Semboller Hakkındaki İçtihatlarına Eleştirel Bir Analiz

Pages
81–100
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For this aim, thepaper will analyse the controversialdecisions of the Court along with itsrecent case law.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The European Convention on HumanRights recognises the right to freedomof religion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The right to freedom ofreligion under the Convention includetwo elements: forum internum andforum externum.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For this aim, thepaper will analyse the controversialdecisions of the Court along with itsrecent case law.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The European Convention on HumanRights recognises the right to freedomof religion. The right to freedom ofreligion under the Convention includetwo elements: forum internum andforum externum. Although the former isabsolute, a restriction could be imposedon the latter in some circumstances. Thiscauses a tension between individualsand group of individuals who want tomanifest their religious beliefs throughheadscarf or religious symbols and stateswhich try to implement restrictions onthe right. Even though the EuropeanCourt on Human Rights has dealt withthe issue over years, it is hard to claimthat it has come up with a solution tothe problem. Therefore, in this paper thejurisprudence of the ECtHR on Islamicheadscarves and religious symbols willbe critically discussed. For this aim, thepaper will analyse the controversialdecisions of the Court along with itsrecent case law.

Özet

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi din ve vicdan özgürlüğünü koruma altına almış olmasına rağmen din ve inancı açıklama özgülüğünün belli durumlarda kısıtlanabilmesine imkân tanımaktadır. Bu nedenle dini inancını başörtüsü giyerek ya da diğer dini sembollerle açıklamak isteyen bireylerle onların bu hakkını kısıtlamak isteyen devlet arasında bir gerilim ortaya çıkmaktadır. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi uzun yıllardır bu meseleyle ilgilenmesine rağmen sorunun çözüme kavuştuğunu iddia etmek oldukça zordur. Bu makale AİHM’nin başörtüsü ve dini semboller hakkındaki içtihatlarına eleştirel bir analiz sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Bu amaçla, makalede mahkemenin tartışmalı kararları ve en son içtihatları ele alınacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİKSOY, E. (2022). A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE ECtHR ON ISLAMIC HEADSCARVES AND RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. Human Rights Review, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 14, 81–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/538185

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Adenitire J, ‘Case Comment: Has the European Court of Human Rights Recognised a Legal Right to Glance at a Smile?’ (2015) 131 Law Quarterly Review 43. Altıparmak K and Karahanoğulları O, ‘Pyrrhus Zaferi: Leyla Şahin/Türkiye, AİHM/Hukuk, Düzenleyici İşlem/Kanun’ (2004) 1 Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi 249 available at: accessed on 29.03.2017. Altiparmak K and Karahanogullari O, ‘After Sahin: The Debate on Headscarves is not Over, Leyla Sahin v Turkey, Grand Chamber Judgment of 10 November 2005, Application No. 44774 / 98’ (2006) 2 European Constitutional Law Review 268. Barnett L, ‘Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in The Public Sphere’ [2008] Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Law and Government Division, Library of Parliament available at: accessed on 15.11.2017. Barton D, ‘Is the French Burka Ban Compatible with International Human Rights Law Standards?’ (2012) 9 Essex Human Rights Review 1 available at: accessed on 01.04.2017. Berry S, ‘Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols: Same Right – Different Interpretation?’ [2013] Blog of the European Journal of International Law available at: accessed on 28.04.2017. ——, ‘SAS v France: Does Anything Remain of the Right to Manifest Religion?’ (Blog of the European Journal of International Law, 2014) available at: accessed on 30.03.2017. Bigger S, ‘Muslim Women’s Views on Dress Code and the Hijaab: Some Issues for Education’ (2006) 27 Journal of Beliefs & Values 215 available at: accessed on 01.04.2017. Bratza N, ‘The “Precious Asset”: Freedom of Religion Under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2012) 14 Ecclesiastical Law Journal 256. Codes RMM de, ‘The Contemporary Form of Registering Religious Entities in Spain’ (1998) 1998 BYU Law Review 369 available at: accessed on 15.05.2017. Cumper P and Lewis T, ‘“Taking Religion Seriously”? Human Rights and Hijab in Europe - Some Problems of Adjudication’ (2008) 24 Journal of Law and Religion 599 available at: accessed on 03.04.2017. Evans C, ‘Individual and Group Religious Freedom in The European Court of Human Rights: Cracks in The Intellectual Architecture’ (2010) 26 Journal of Law & Religion 321. Evans M and Petkoff P, ‘A Separation of Convenience? The Concept of Neutrality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2008) 36 Religion, State and Society 205. Gürsel ED, ‘The Distinction Between the Freedom of Religion and the Right to Manifest Religion: A Legal Medium to Regulate Subjectivities’ (2013) 22 Social & Legal St