CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s216DBE45 { width:187.29pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s1B3C49BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.65pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF MANSUR YALÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   (Application no. 21163/11)           JUDGMENT (Extracts)       STRASBOURG   16 September 2014     FINAL   16/02/2015   This judgment has become final under Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mansur Yalçin and Others v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Işıl Karakaş,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Egidijus Kūris,   Robert Spano,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 July 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 21163/11) 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 fourteen Turkish nationals, Mr Mansur Yalçın, Mr   Namık Sofuoğlu, Ms Serap Topçu, Mr Ali Yüce, Mr Ali Kaplan, Ms   Eylem Onat Karataş, Mr Hüseyin Kaya, Ms Sevinç Ilgın, Mr   İsmail   Ilgın, Mr Cafer Aktan, Mr Hakkı Saygı, Mr Kemal Kuzucu, Mr   Yüksel Polat and Mr Hasan Kılıç (“the applicants”), on 2 February 2011. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr N. Sofuoğlu and Mr S. Topçu, lawyers practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that the manner in which the compulsory religious culture and ethics classes were taught in primary and secondary schools infringed their rights under the second sentence of Article   2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They further complained of a violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. 4.     On 26 October 2012 the Government were given notice of the application. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants live in Istanbul. They are followers of the Alevi faith. Mr   Mansur Yalçın, Mr Yüksel Polat and Mr Hasan Kılıç all had school-age children. More specifically, E. Polat (Yüksel Polat’s daughter), who completed her secondary schooling in 2007, G. Kılıç (Hasan Kılıç’s son), who completed his secondary schooling in 2010, and T.   Yalçın (Mansur Yalçın’s daughter), who completed her secondary schooling in 2010, were attending a secondary educational establishment at the relevant time. Mr   Sofuoğlu stated that, at the time the domestic proceedings were instituted, his son and daughter had completed the second cycle of secondary education and were in higher education. Ms Serap Topçu and Ms Eylem Onat Karataş, meanwhile, stated that they had attended “compulsory religious culture and ethics classes” at school and that their young children – whose ages they did not specify – would likewise have to attend those classes when they went to school. 6.     In Turkey, school attendance is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 and 13. For the first four years, children attend primary school (Years 1 to 4). The following four years are spent in the first cycle of secondary school (Years 5 to 8). After that, pupils spend a further three or four years in school, depending on the subjects chosen, in an upper secondary school ( lise ). A.     Domestic proceedings 1.     Applicants’ request to the administrative authorities 7.     On 22 June 2005 the applicants asked the Ministry of Education to initiate a consultation process with Alevi faith leaders with a view to overhauling the syllabus for religious culture and ethics classes and including Alevi culture and philosophy. They also requested the introduction of compulsory training for teachers of these classes and the setting-up of a monitoring and supervisory mechanism. They cited in that regard extracts from monitoring reports prepared by the European Commission which were critical of the content and the compulsory nature of the religious culture and ethics classes. 8.     In its reply of 15 July 2005 the Religious Education Department of the Ministry of Education (“the Department”) stated that, in the textbooks used in religious culture and ethics lessons in the primary cycle, priority was given to the teaching of ethical and religious values common to society as a whole. As to the content of the classes at secondary level, the Department stated that, while respecting the same principles, the syllabus took a supra ‑ denominational approach ( mezhepler üstü ) and that the religious culture and ethics textbooks also presented other understandings of Islam. It added that the syllabus for the 2005/06 school year had been drawn up on the basis of this supra-denominational approach, which according to the Department was centred on the Koran, did not favour any particular branch of Islam and respected the principle of secularism. The Department also mentioned that the syllabus for Year 9 (the first year of upper secondary school) featured public figures who had been important in shaping the Turkish understanding of Islam, while the syllabus for Year 11 explained the different interpretations of Islam, and the Year 12 syllabus contained a wealth of information on Alevi-Bektashi ( bektaşi ) culture. In the same letter, the Department further specified that teacher training had been introduced ahead of the entry into effect of the new syllabus. Lastly, it observed that topics relating to the Alevi faith had been included in the religious culture and ethics syllabus for secondary schools for the 2005/06 school year. 2.     Proceedings brought by the applicants in the Administrative Court 9.     After receiving the letter from the Department rejecting their proposal, the applicants and 1,905 other people challenged the Department’s decision in the Ankara Administrative Court. Referring to the Court’s case ‑ law on the subject, they argued that the teaching provided in religious culture and ethics lessons could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism. In support of their argument they presented six reports drawn up by various experts who had studied the textbooks used for the subject. Referring to the findings of those reports, they maintained that the textbooks in question provided instruction based on a “Sunni” interpretation of Islam and could by no means be regarded as neutral vis ‑ à ‑ vis other interpretations of Islam. They relied in particular on Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 3.     Expert report requested by the Administrative Court 10.     The Ankara Administrative Court appointed of its own motion a committee of three experts tasked with drawing up a report on the teaching provided in the context of religious culture and ethics classes. 11.     On an unspecified date a nine-page report written by a professor of Kalam (Islamic religious studies), a professor of education and a professor of religious sociology was added to the case file and sent to the applicants. The report stated in substance as follows. (i)     For the purposes of the study the experts had examined the religious culture and ethics textbooks used in schools by Years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 as authorised by the Ministry of Education. The religious culture and ethics syllabus for primary schools had been adopted by a decision of 28   December 2006 of the Supreme Council for Education attached to the Ministry of Education and had been introduced in the 2007/08 school year to replace the previous syllabus of 19 September 2000. The new secondary syllabus had come into effect following a decision of 31 March 2005. The textbooks criticised by the applicants had therefore been prepared under the earlier syllabus. (ii)     The textbooks were structured around three main themes: religious culture, ethics and national and spiritual values. The parts concerning ethics and national and spiritual values covered topics common to all citizens. The part concerning religious culture had been drafted using a supra ‑ denominational approach centred on fundamental concepts such as the Koran and the Sunnah ( Sünnet ), and did not favour any particular branch of Islam. (iii)     The syllabus did not give precedence to any particular faith. On the contrary, the textbooks reflected a supra-denominational approach. The syllabus observed the principle of objectivity and did not give priority to any faith or any religious group. The textbooks and the syllabus were designed to deliver information on Islam using pedagogical methods. (iv)     The use of the religious culture and ethics textbooks written by M.   Şahinbaş and A. Kabakçı for Years 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 had been discontinued in the 2007/08 school year following the changes to the syllabus. They had been replaced by new textbooks written by Ministry of Education committees. The same was true of the textbooks for upper secondary schools, which had been replaced in the 2006/07 school year. In drawing up the new syllabus implemented in the 2006/07 school year, the Ministry of Education had taken full account of the points raised by the applicants. (v)     Unlike the former syllabus, the new syllabus covered topics such as the principles of the Alevi faith, the worship, mystical philosophy, ethical understanding, prayers ( niyaz ) and collective prayer ( cem ) of followers of the Alevi faith, and also Alevi principles and rites such as the twelve religious services ( 12   hizmet ), the path to God, the Hizir and Muharram fasts ( Hızır ve Muharrem orucu ), the four gates ( 4 kapɪ ) and forty levels ( 40   makam ), the three Sunnahs ( 3 sünnet ) and the seven obligations ( 7   farz ). In the course of preparing the school textbooks and choosing the topics relating to the Alevi faith, worship and ethics, extensive recourse had been had to publications written by prominent Alevis. (vi)     While the teaching of religion as such took account of the precepts of the Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed, the other interpretations of Islam were covered in the context of cultural information. Hence, the textbooks provided information on Alevism, Jafarism ( caferilik ), Hanafism ( hanefilik ), Shafism ( şafilik ), Shiism ( şiilik ) and the Sufi movements. They also provided teaching on the foundations of Islam and in particular the five prayers, pilgrimage, charity and sacrifice. Around thirty pages were devoted to the Alevi faith. (vii)     In conclusion, the report recommended the addition of references to certain aspects of the Alevi faith, for instance festivals, and specified that the cemevi was a place of cultural exchange for Alevis rather than a place of worship. 4.     Reports prepared at the applicants’ request and submitted to the Administrative Court 12.     On 14 September 2009 the applicants contested the expert report and filed additional pleadings. They submitted that the teaching that was provided focused on the Sunni interpretation of Islam and that the Alevi faith was presented in summary fashion. Providing examples, they argued that much of the information presented contained errors. In particular, they claimed that the symbols linked to their faith had been ignored and that the mosque was presented as the Muslim place of worship. They asserted that certain Sunni Muslim rituals, namely the prayers or Salat ( namaz ) and ablutions ( abdest ) were imposed and were presented according to the Sunni interpretation of Islam. They also complained that the experts had denied that the cemevi was the Alevis’ place of worship. They criticised the Year 5 textbook, in which the main rituals of Islam were reportedly listed as Salat, fasting, pilgrimage and charity, arguing that the information provided was confined to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, whereas, in their view, a theological debate was under way as to how Salat should be performed. Lastly, they alleged that the textbooks in question treated the Alevi faith as a tradition or culture rather than as a fully-fledged faith. 5.     The Administrative Court judgment 13.     In a judgment of 1 October 2009 the Ankara Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ claims on the ground that the refusal of their request by the respondent authorities had conformed to the relevant legislation. The court referred to the findings of the report on the teaching of religious culture and ethics (see paragraph 11 above), taking the view that religious subjects were dealt with using a supra-denominational approach in the textbooks for both the old and the new syllabus. The court considered that the principle of State neutrality had thus been respected and that the new topics had been chosen taking into account the country’s educational needs. 6.     Appeal on points of law 14.     The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the first ‑ instance judgment. 15.     In a judgment of 13 July 2010, which was served on 2 August 2010, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the first-instance judgment, which it considered to be in conformity with both the procedure and the law. B.     Information provided by the parties 1.     The Government 16.     The Government provided the following additional information. Between June 2009 and March 2011 a large number of workshops ( çalıştay ) had been held in Turkey, attended by leaders of the Alevi ‑ Bektashi and other faiths, with the aim of examining issues concerning the Alevi community. The topics covered included the teaching of religious culture and ethics in primary and secondary schools. Following these workshops it was decided that the Ministry of Education would overhaul the existing syllabus. A special meeting was organised, chaired by the Secretary of State and attended by the leaders of different faith groups in Turkey and Ministry of Education experts. It was decided at the meeting that the process of overhauling the syllabus would be overseen by the Ministry’s Religious Education Department. 17.     A series of meetings was held within the Religious Education Department, designed to allow an exchange of views and to identify the wishes of the different faiths. The meetings were attended by Alevi ‑ Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi ( nusayri ) leaders and examined the current syllabus and textbooks. In addition, on the basis of the findings of a report prepared by the Alevi-Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi representatives, the syllabus and the textbooks were amended in order to respond – in large part, in the Government’s submission – to the concerns expressed by the leaders of those communities. The new religious culture and ethics textbooks were introduced at the start of the 2011/12 school year. After overhauling the syllabus the national authorities organised training seminars throughout the country for teachers of the subject. 18.     In Turkey, pupils belonging to the Jewish and Christian faiths are exempted from religious culture and ethics classes in accordance with decision no. 1 of 9 July 1990 of the Supreme Council for Education. The latter decided on 25 June 2012 and 14 August 2012 to draw up a religious instruction syllabus specifically designed for Jewish and Christian pupils in primary and secondary schools. To that end, a meeting was held in Istanbul on 10 and 11 September 2012 with Christian spiritual leaders. The national authorities also appointed a university-based coordinator to oversee preparation of the syllabus. At the meetings concerning the new syllabus it was made clear that the spiritual leaders of the faiths concerned were free to design the programme of religious instruction in accordance with their own beliefs, lifestyles and traditions. Accordingly, the Christian representatives sent a draft syllabus to the Ministry of Education and the Jewish representatives informed the Ministry that their syllabus was being finalised. The draft syllabuses will be discussed at a meeting to be attended by representatives of the faiths concerned with a view to adoption of a final version. 19.     The Government produced before the Court a document drawn up by the Religious Education Department of the Ministry of Education. According to this document, those responsible for preparing the syllabus had taken care in drawing it up not to favour a particular faith but instead to adopt a supra-denominational approach. The document also stated that the wishes of the different religious groups had been taken into account and that the children of Alevi citizens were not forced to follow a particular religious teaching or practice. It further specified that the new syllabus had been adopted on 30 December 2010 and had been introduced at the start of the 2011/12 school year. The document was accompanied by a summary of the new course content and extracts from the textbooks dealing with the various interpretations of Islam. It explained, among other things, that topics relating to the Alevi-Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi communities had been incorporated in the syllabus and textbooks in question. Those topics are set out below. The textbooks for Years 4 and 5 proposed activities related to the sayings of Ali (son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed). They also contained passages concerning the importance attached to cleanliness by Haci Bektaş Veli (a leading Sufi and founder of the Bektashi brotherhood in the fourteenth century). Under the heading “Different examples of prayers in our culture”, they dealt with the various interpretations of certain surahs and Alevi-Bektashi prayers. They also referred to the significance of certain days and nights in that faith. The Year 6 textbook dealt with the five compulsory prayers ( namaz ) and the call to prayer ( ezan ) and also took Jafari practice into account. It further referred to the role and importance of Ali in Islam. Lastly, it presented leading figures like Ali er-Riza, Ahmet Yesevi and Haci Bektaş Veli, who had contributed to the adoption of Islam in Turkey. In the textbook for Year 7, an item concerning the Muharram fast had been added to the chapter on fasting, which also contained an account of the Battle of Karbala. The chapter entitled “Different interpretations within Islam” explored the Alevi-Bektashi faith. This last section addressed the following topics: the different types of cem , the twelve religious services, the semah [1] , the spiritual brotherhood ( musahiplik ), prayers and the Hizir fast. These topics were also covered in the Year 12 textbook. Lastly, the textbooks for Years 9, 10 and 11 presented important figures in the Alevi-Bektashi faith and, in different passages, highlighted the role and importance of Ali in Islam. 2.     The applicants 20.     The applicants submitted three documents in particular to the Court. The first was a research report compiled for the “Educational reform initiative” ( Eğitim Reformu Girişimi ) by Ms   M.   Yıldırım, an expert on religious freedom and director of the “Initiative for freedom of religion and beliefs in Turkey”. The report is entitled “An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year” ( 2011-2012 Öğretim Yılında Uygulanan Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi Dersi Programına İlişkin bir Değerlendirme ). After analysing the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year, the expert went on to state as follows: “ Syllabus for Years 1 to 8 If we compare the new syllabus for religious culture and ethics with the previous one, we can see that the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity. The changes consisted mainly in adding some new information and moving a few chapters. Among the additions, a long chapter is now devoted to the different interpretations of Islam and certain traditions within Islam (primarily the Alevi-Bektashi and Jafari traditions), including terminology, practices and references. As to the overall content in terms of the teaching goals and the areas covered, the values and concepts dealt with in the syllabus remain close to those in the previous syllabus and no major changes have been made. Reading materials have been added at the end of each chapter in order to reinforce what has been learnt. In addition, certain principles are spelled out, for instance ‘Pupils shall not be compelled to follow religious practices’ and ‘Pupils shall not be required to learn verses or hadiths by heart or to copy out prayers and surahs other than those contained in the textbooks’ ... Year 7 ... The chapter devoted to the different interpretations of Islam in the old Year 8 syllabus ... is now on the syllabus for Year 7. As to the content, the following topics have been added: ‘The Sufi interpretations of Islam ...’ and ‘The fundamental concepts in the Alevi-Bektashi tradition’. In the same chapter, the notion of a ‘branch’ ( mezhep ) has been replaced by that of ‘religious interpretation’. With regard to the Alevi-Bektashi tradition, it is stated explicitly that only the following concepts will be covered: ‘ cem , cemevi , rizalik , kul hakki , the twelve services, semah , spiritual brotherhood, gülbenk and the Hizir fast’ and that ‘the cemevi is to be considered as the place where the cem takes place’, thereby avoiding stating that the cemevi is a place of worship.   ... Syllabus for Years 9 to 12 If we compare the new religious culture and ethics syllabus with the previous one, we can see that, as for the other year groups, the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity, but consist in a number of additions and the moving around of a few chapters. ...   Year 12 ... We can observe that, as regards the acquisition of knowledge through revelation ( vahiy ) and through reason, the content of the chapter headed ‘Sufi interpretations in Islamic thought’ has been enhanced. [It covers topics] such as ‘The role and importance of ethics in Sufi thought ...’, ‘Different types of cem ’, ‘Concepts such as semah , spiritual brotherhood and gülbenk ’, ‘The importance of the month of Muharram and of Ashura in our culture’ and ‘The nusayri ’ ... The activities include one entitled ‘Learning about the Sufi interpretations’, and it is stated that pupils will be asked to research one of the following topics: the yesevilik , the mevlevilik and the Alevi-Bektashi faith ... . It is [also] stated that topics such as ‘The role of Haci Bektaş Veli in the Bektashi understanding and in the development of the Alevi faith’ will be covered and that ‘in terms of its fundamental underpinnings, the nusayri faith is structured around the Koran ...’. ... ... Can the syllabus for the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics be said to be compatible with the Toledo principles? An analysis of the course content shows that it combines elements of ‘classes on a given religion from the perspective of that religion’, ‘classes providing limited, but relatively objective information on other religions’, ‘classes in ethics rooted in a particular religion’ and ‘classes on Islamic-Turkish civilisation’ rather than classes on religions. In that connection, the syllabus does not state that the course comprises classes on religions; on the contrary, it is stated that it is a course of ‘religious instruction. In Article 24 of the Constitution, the term used is ‘instruction in religious culture’, referring to a knowledge of religious culture drawing on a variety of sources, as opposed to ‘religious instruction’ (see Supreme Administrative Court judgments E.2006/6 – K.2007/481, 28   December 2007, and E.2007/679 – K.2008/1461, 29   February 2008). Moreover, the same Article contains another provision dealing sp e cifically with ‘religious instruction’. In the syllabus, the word ‘religion’ is commonly used to denote Islam, but is sometimes, confusingly, used in the general sense. The most significant changes in the new syllabus compared with the previous one lie in the addition of terminology, practices and references relating to other interpretations or traditions within Islam. One does not need to be an expert in theology to conclude that the approach, structure and priorities have remained the same, with the diversity existing within Islam being reflected only in a few additions to the previous syllabus. Brief analysis in the light of the Toledo principles According to the Toledo principles, teaching about religions should be sensitive, balanced, inclusive, non-doctrinal, impartial, and based on human rights principles relating to freedom of religion or belief. ... Non-doctrinal The changes made to the syllabus and textbooks are not such as to alter the doctrinal nature of the classes. The expressions ‘our religion’, ‘our divine scripture’ and ‘our prophet’ are used frequently and are taught as religious dogma. Impartial The State’s duty of impartiality is incompatible with any power on the State’s part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs. However, the fact of stating that the cemevi is a place where the cem is practised amounts to an assessment. The rejection of the generally accepted idea among Alevis that the cemevi is a place of worship is incompatible with the State’s duty of impartiality ... ... Assessment of the content in the light of the legal requirements – the State, parents and children ... The fact that, at both primary and secondary level, religious culture and ethics classes are compulsory and include the dogmas and practices of the Muslim faith, and that the children are assumed to be followers of that faith, is liable to result in situations of conflict with parents’ religious and philosophical beliefs... Likewise, the use of expressions such as ‘our religion’, ‘my religion’, ‘our sacred book the Koran’ and ‘our prophet’, and the teaching of the surahs of the Koran and the practice of Salat ( namaz ) mean that parents who do not subscribe to the Muslim faith may find their children receiving instruction other than that which they wish to pass on to them. Furthermore, the fact that the surahs of the Koran and the practice of Salat are regarded as [knowledge] to be acquired means that children are liable to face a conflict of allegiances with the beliefs handed down by their parents, in breach of the individual’s right not to be compelled to act in a manner running counter to his or her own convictions. ... In sum, the changes made to the syllabus for religious culture and ethics are not sufficient to put an end to the violation of parents’ right to ensure [their children’s] education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions ... Conclusion Looking at the changes implemented in 2011/12, there has been some progress towards the desired goal, which is to ensure pluralist religious teaching, in so far as the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics reflect the diversity existing within Islam in Turkey. These classes have also maintained their particular feature of dispensing both ‘teaching of the Muslim religion’ and ‘teaching of other religions’...” 21.     The second document provided by the applicants was a study entitled “Issues regarding religion classes” ( Din Dersi Sorunu ), prepared on 23 January 2013 by M.K. Kılıç, a teacher of religious culture and ethics and education secretary of the teachers’ trade union Eğitim-İş. The parts of the study relevant to the present case read as follows:   “... From the fourth year of the primary cycle until the end of upper secondary school, the syllabus for the classes in religious culture and ethics has been devised on the basis of the Sunni-Matrudi-Hanafite understanding of Islam. Either no instruction is given concerning other branches of Islam or these are considered as dissident branches ( aykırı görüş ). The main focus is always on Sunni Islam. Hence, the syllabus has not been prepared using a supra-denominational approach, but on the basis of a wholly denominational one ( mezhepçi ). ... In the textbooks, the Alevi faith is not regarded as a branch of Islam ( mezhep ). The syllabus deals only with the cultural aspects and folk traditions. In the textbook used in Year 7, in the chapter entitled “Interpretations within Islamic thought”, the Alevi faith is not regarded either as an interpretation of the faith ( itikadi mezhep ) or as a theological interpretation ( fikhi yorum ). It is described instead as a Sufi interpretation, with the result that it is not seen as one of the main branches like Sunnism or Shiism. In the syllabus for Years 7 and 12, the Alevi faith is placed in the same category as the Sunni brotherhoods ( Sünni tarikatlar ), that is to say, in a sub ‑ category vis-à-vis the main branches, which reduces its value. From both a faith-based and a theological perspective, however, the Alevi faith is an independent branch of Islam. [It is true that], ... in the Alevi faith, the mystical and Sufi interpretation predominates. However, presenting this faith solely as a Sufi entity does not reflect the reality... In sum, in the syllabuses and textbooks for the classes in religious culture and ethics: 1.     The Alevi faith is not considered as a branch of Islam in its own right, unlike Sunnism and Shiism. 2.     Directly or indirectly, pupils are taught that the Alevi faith is a Sufi movement and that its rites are merely cultural and folk rituals rather than fundamental rites of Islam. 3.     The Alevi faith is not recognised as a branch ( mezhep ) of Islam; the tenets of its faith and beliefs are disregarded. 4.     Likewise, the following facts are not acknowledged: the cem , which is the fundamental prayer of the Alevi faith, is the equivalent of the Salat ( namaz ) of the Sunnis and Shiites. The Alevis’ Muharram fast is the equivalent of Ramadan. The cemevi , the Alevi place of worship, is the equivalent of the Sunni or Shiite mosque. The semah is not a cultural or folk ritual, nor is it a zikr (or dhikr ) ceremony (a ritual prayer or litany practised by the Sufi brotherhoods); it is actually a form of prayer. 5.     The saz or bağlama is a sacred instrument for Alevis. The Alevi faith is inseparable from [this instrument]. ... If the syllabus and textbooks for this course are revised in a manner which takes account of these factors, the issue as regards Alevis [in relation to this course] can be considered to have been largely resolved.” 22.     The third document was a study entitled “Compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics: between pluralist ‘supra-denominationalism’ and majority confessionalism”. It was prepared in January 2013 by A.   Yaman, professor at Abant İzzet Baysal University and Chair of Political History, who is also an Alevi leader, more specifically a dede (religious and spiritual leader). The parts of relevance to the present case read as follows: “...The syllabus for the compulsory classes poses the greatest difficulties for Alevis, as the course content and the training given to the teachers are not compatible with the Alevi approach. The teaching is dispensed by staff whose background is in Sunni beliefs and culture and who are graduates of the imam-hatip (imam and preacher) schools or the faculties of theology, where they follow a curriculum [in line with Sunni beliefs and culture]. Such an arrangement may be regarded as suited to the needs of Sunni citizens ... but it can hardly be acceptable for the same syllabus to be taught to Alevis. It is clear from recent developments that the argument that the course content is ‘supra-denominational’ is false. In that connection, why is it that the textbooks which in 2005 were supposedly ‘supra-denominational’ were amended in 2008 and 2011, with passages on the Alevis being added following the meetings? One particular – and admittedly perfectly respectable – school of religious thought predominates in this course, and the Alevi faith is not adequately represented. Alevi children are caught in a stranglehold between the information they receive at school and that which is handed down by their families. Furthermore, problems arise with certain teachers ... ... Taking into account the proposals made by the commission [responsible for revising the content of the syllabus] which was set up following the workshops on Alevi issues ( Alevi calıştayları ) – and some of whose meetings I myself attended – a collection of the proposed amendments to the textbooks was sent to the Minister of State. [Subsequently] ..., some changes were made to the textbooks for Years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 published in 2011. However, if we compare the proposals and the changes actually made, we can see that the number of changes is not nearly sufficient, and that a strategy was adopted that was restrictive and/or sought to exclude certain elements ( dışlayıcı ). This is naturally a source of dismay. [I think it is fair to say that] the fact that the basic Alevi form of worship, the cem , is presented in the Year 7 and Year 12 textbooks under the section devoted to religious interpretations rather than in the chapter on worship clearly demonstrates that [the syllabus] was not devised on the basis of a supra-denominational approach and that the textbooks were written from a specific perspective. ... ...The commission’s proposal to recognise ‘the cemevi [as] a place of worship’ was disregarded ... Moreover, it is interesting to note that, whereas Salat is explained in detail using drawings [in the Year 5 textbook] and that, under the heading ‘Learning about the mosque’ [the different parts of the mosque] are illustrated with drawings and poems, no description is provided of any Alevi institution or rule. In these compulsory classes, Alevi pupils can learn about the main forms of worship only according to the Sunni understanding of Islam... Although the commission presented proposals concerning the inclusion of topics relating to the cem and the other Alevi forms of worship [in the chapter on worship of the Year 6 textbook], the approach adopted consists in stating that ‘worship takes the form of Salat’... The Alevi faith is presented in the context of the spiritual brotherhoods and Sufism, including the naksilik and kadirilik brotherhoods, etc., instead of featuring in the chapter on beliefs and worship. [Hence] the cemevi is presented merely as a gathering place for the brotherhoods ...” 23.     The Government expressed doubts as to the objectivity and impartiality of the expert reports submitted by the applicants. They maintained in particular that the documents entitled “An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year” and “Issues regarding religion classes”, submitted by the applicants, were not the work of academics. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The Constitution 24.     Article 2 of the Constitution reads as follows: “The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social State based on the rule of law that is respectful of human rights in a spirit of social peace, national solidarity and justice, adheres to the nationalism of Atatürk and is underpinned by the fundamental principles set out in the Preamble.” 25.     Article 24 of the Constitution, in so far as relevant to the present case, reads as follows: “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, belief and religious conviction.   Acts of worship, religious services, and ceremonies shall be conducted freely, provided that they do not violate the provisions of Article 14. No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers or in religious ceremonies and rites or to disclose his or her religious beliefs and convictions; no one shall be censured or prosecuted for his religious beliefs or convictions.   Education and instruction in religion and ethics shall be provided under the supervision and control of the State. Instruction in religious culture and ethics shall be a compulsory part of the curriculum of primary and secondary schools. Other religious education and instruction shall be a matter for individual choice, with the decision in the case of minors being taken by their legal guardians. ...” B.     The State Education Act (Law no. 1739) 26.     Section 12 of the State Education Act (Law no. 1739) provides: “Secularism is the basis of Turkish State education. Religious culture and ethics shall be among the compulsory subjects taught in primary and upper secondary schools and schools of an equivalent level.” C.     Decision no. 1 of 9 July 1990 on exemptions 27.     On 9 July 1990 the Supreme Council for Education attached to the Ministry of Education adopted a decision on religious culture and ethics classes and the arrangements for exemption from them. It stated: “Following the proposal by the Ministry of Education, pupils of Turkish nationality who belong to the Christian or Jewish religions and who attend primary and secondary schools, with the exception of schools for minorities, may be exempted from attending the classes in religious culture and ethics provided that they affirm their adherence to those religions. If, however, such pupils wish to attend these classes, they must submit a written request signed by their legal guardian.” D.     The teaching of religion in Turkey 28.     Prior to the entry into force of the 1982 Constitution, participation in religious studies classes was optional in Turkey and was a matter for parents to decide as they saw fit. Article 24 of the 1982 Constitution made religious culture and ethics classes compulsory throughout the State education system, from the fourth year of primary school up to the final year of upper secondary school. 29.     In 2012 two optional religious classes, entitled “The Life of Mohammed” and “The Koran”, were introduced in primary and secondary schools under Law no. 6287, enacted on 30 March 2012. A third optional course entitled “Basic religious knowledge, Islam 1-2” was added later. 30.     A form of religious instruction is organised in most parts of Turkey in the form of courses on the Koran ( Kuran Kursu ). These are not part of the Ministry of Education’s curriculum but are run under the auspices of the Religious Affairs Office, the senior authority responsible for overseeing the management of Islamic affairs in Turkey. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS 31.     For an overview of the main relevant international materials and a comparative-law study, see the judgment in Hasan and Eylem Zengin v.   Turkey (no.   1448/04, §§ 25-34, 9 October 2007). European Committee against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) 32.     The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance expressed its view on the teaching of religion in schools, in General policy recommendation no. 5 on “Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims” (CRI (2000) 21, 27 April 2000). After reiterating the principles of respect for equality and non-discrimination between religions and recognising the great diversity intrinsic in the practice of Islam, it recommended that the governments of the member States “ensure that religious instruction in schools respects cultural pluralism and make provision for teacher training to this effect”. 33.     In its fourth report on Turkey (CRI(2011)5, adopted on 10 December 2010) ECRI stated, in particular, as follows: “Compulsory religious education 72.     In examining compulsory religious education in schools in its third report on Turkey, ECRI observed that the situation was unclear: it noted that although the syllabus was officially described as covering all religions and designed to give pupils an idea of all religions, several sources described it as essentially providing instruction in the Muslim faith, and underlined that children belonging to recognised non-Muslim minorities could be exempted. ECRI observed that if the course indeed covered different religious cultures, there should be no reason to make it compulsory for Muslim children alone; conversely, if it was essentially designed to teach the Muslim religion, it should not be compulsory, in order to preserve children’s and their parents’ religious freedom. Accordingly, it urged the Turkish authorities to reconsider their approach and to take steps either to make this instruction optional for everyone or to revise its content so as to ensure that it genuinely covers all religious cultures and is no longer perceived as instruction in the Muslim religion. 73.     No significant changes in practice have been reported since ECRI’s third report; numerous sources consider that the compulsory religious education delivered in state schools in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 12 of Law no.   1739 on National Education still focuses essentially on instruction in the principles of the Sunni Muslim faith. The authorities have emphasised that school courses on religious culture and morals aim to provide a general insight into all religions while focusing more on the principles of the Muslim faith, and that it is legitimate to focus more on the religion practiced in a specific area... 74.     ECRI ... emphasises the need to ensure that the convictions of members of all religious minority groups are respected in the education system, including the convictions of persons who do not want their children to receive any religious instruction at school.” THE LAW ... II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 48.     The applicants Mansur Yalçın, Yüksel Polat and Hasan Kılıç submitted that the way in which the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics were delivered in primary and secondary schools infringed their rights under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides: “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” 49.     The Government contested that argument. A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The applicants 50.     The applicants submitted that religious culture and ethics was not taught in an objective, critical and pluralist manner and hence did not satisfy the criteria which, in their view, had been established by the Court in the context of its interpretation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 51.     Referring to the studies they had added to the file (see paragraphs 20-22 above), the applicants submitted that the experts were unanimous in finding that the teaching of the subject entitled “Religious culture and ethics” could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism or to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of Alevi parents. With regard to the changes made to the syllabus for that subject in 2011/12, these did not constitute a radical shift towards respect for certain principles such as impartiality and objectivity and were not sufficient to put an end to the violation of parents’ right to ensure that their children received an education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The applicants also rejected the argument that the syllabus for religious culture and ethics had been drawn up using a supra ‑ denominational approach, taking the view that the syllabus was based wholly on a particular religious perspective and publicly endorsed the beliefs and traditions of the Sunni understanding of Islam. The Alevi faith, of which they were followers, was dealt with in a sub-category rather than as one of the main branches of Islam, an approach which undervalued it. Their faith was a fully-fledged branch of Islam, from both a faith-based and a theological perspective, in view of the fact that it had its own rites – for instance, the cem , the semah and the Muharram fast – and its own place of worship, the cemevi . Alevi children were caught in a stranglehold between the information they received at school and that which was passed on by their families. In addition, the changes made to the textbooks clearly fell short of the proposals made by the commission responsible for revising the content of the syllabus for religious culture and ethics. 52.     In the applicants’ submission, the course also provided insufficient and inaccurate information on the Alevi faith. Lastly, in a number of schools, religious practices such as Salat or the learning of Arabic prayers by heart had reportedly been imposed on Alevi pupils. 2.     The Government 53.     In the Government’s submission, the Court, in its judgment in Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1982, Series A no. 48), had considered that compulsory religious instruction in State schools whose content was devised in an objective, critical and pluralist manner did not run the risk of indoctrination in a particular set of beliefs. In the present case, under both the old and the new syllabus for the subject in question, the textbooks covered three topics: religious culture, ethics, and national and spiritual values. The topics relating to ethics and spiritual values were common to all citizens. As to those relating to religious culture, they were dealt with on a supra-denominational basis and in an objective manner, and gave priority to the generally accepted interpretation of the Muslim religion without favouring any particular branch of Islam. 54.     The syllabus for the classes in question was not apt to favour sectarian or denominational teaching methods, and the textbooks had been designed using a supra-denominational approach. The syllab