CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 127 February 2010 Sinan Işık v. Turkey - 21924/05 Judgment 2.2.2010 [Section II] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Indication of religion on identity cards: violation   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to remove details of religious affiliation from identity cards   Facts – The applicant was a member of the Alevi religious community. In 2004 he applied to the courts requesting that his identity card feature the word “Alevi” rather than “Islam”, but his applications were unsuccessful. Law – Article 9: A law of 2006 which made it possible to request that the “religion” entry on an identity card be left blank or deleted had not changed the applicant’s situation. When identity cards provided for an indication of religion, the mere fact of leaving the relevant entry blank would inevitably have a specific connotation. The bearer of an identity card without any information concerning his or her religion would be distinguished, against his or her will, on account of interference by the authorities, from individuals whose religious beliefs were indicated. Moreover, the fact of requesting the authorities to leave the box blank was closely linked to the bearer’s most personal convictions. The disclosure of one of the most intimate aspects of the individual was therefore still at issue. That situation was undoubtedly at odds with the principle of freedom not to manifest one’s religion or belief. That being said, the breach in question had arisen not from a refusal to indicate the applicant’s faith on his identity card but from the very fact that his identity card contained an indication of religion, regardless of whether it was obligatory or optional. Accordingly, the applicant could still claim to be a victim of a violation, even after the law of 2006. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 46: The breach of the applicant’s right under Article   9 of the Convention had arisen from the fact that his identity card contained an indication of religion, whether obligatory or optional. In this connection, the Court found that the deletion of the “religion” box on identity cards could be an appropriate form of reparation to put an end to the breach.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes