The case-studies

CASE OF LEYLA ŞAHİN vs. TURKEY

Leyla is a medical student at the University of Bursa. She comes from a traditional family of practicing Muslims and she considers it her religious duty to wear the Islamic headscarf.

She wore the Islamic headscarf during the four years she spent studying there, until a circular was issued. It is said that students wearing the Islamic headscarf are not to be admitted to courses, lectures or tutorials. Twice, when she wanted to attend class or to write an exam she was sent away.

Leyla went to the European Court of Human Rights and claimed that these measures were against Art 9 of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.

1.) Shall students be allowed to wear religious symbols in universities in secular countries?

2.) Are students wearing a headscarf a threat to secular state order?

3.) Are students wearing headscarfs a threat to the religious freedom of female students who do not want to wear a headscarf?

4.) Is the headscarf a symbol of the oppression of woman?

CASE OF LAUTIS vs. ITALY

Mrs. SoileLautsi was a citizen of Finland as well as of Italy. Her sons went to school in AbanoTerme. In this school a crucifix was fixed to the wall in each classroom. Mrs. Lautsi was a member of the Union of Atheists and Agnostics and she felt, that by the presence of the crucifix in classroom her sons would be educated in a school environment marked by a particular religion. She felt, that the school should be a neutral space concerning religion to prevent a certain religion being imposed on staff and students. She asked the crucifixes to be removed, but the school refused. In front of the ECHR she claimed a violation of Art 9.

1.) Is there a difference between a cross and a crucifix?

2.) Is a cross necessarily a religious symbol?

3.) Is a state obliged to neutrality towards confessions?

4.) Does a crucifix on the wall influence pupils?

After the discussions participants give their own sentence you can shortly explain the sentence of the ECHR and the dissenting opinion.The goal is not for the participants to guess the sentence of the court but to discuss the topic – as the ECHR’s sentences are considered quite inconsistent by many lawyers (at least by the Austrians that I met) there is no right or wrong answer.

For further reading: www.echr.coe.int

You can find the mentioned cases and many more on this page. Especially look at the section Press – Factsheets –Religion and clothing. �

What rights? What freedoms? Mirjam Meindl, Clemens Brilla

Mirjam Meindl is a Law student at the University of Vienna. She focuses on IT-Law and Religious Law. In July 2013 she was the youth delegate of Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Austria, at the Conference of European Churches in Budapest.

Clemens David Brilla studied Master of Arts in Religion, Society and Culture at Leibniz University in Hannover (Germany). During his BA he spent also a semester in Istanbul. In his Master Thesis he focused on the headscarf controversy in Turkey and the socio-political background of this phenomenon. Besides this he is participating in the German SCM (ESG) on the local and national level since 2007.