CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   088 02.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Sinan Isik v. Turkey (application no. 21924/05)     INDICATION OF RELIGION ON IDENTITY CARDS WAS IN BREACH OF CONVENTION     Violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Sinan Işık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He is a member of the Alevi religious community, which is deeply rooted in Turkish society and history. Their faith, which is influenced, in particular, by Sufism and pre-Islamic beliefs, is regarded by some Alevi scholars as a separate religion and by others as a branch of Islam.   In 2004 Mr Işık applied to a court requesting that his identity card feature the word “Alevi” rather than the word “Islam”. Until 2006 it was obligatory for the holder’s religion to be indicated on an identity card (but since 2006 he or she has been entitled to request that the entry be left blank).   On 7 September 2004 the İzmir District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, on the basis of an opinion it had sought from the legal adviser to the Religious Affairs Directorate (a public body). The court found, endorsing that opinion, that the term “Alevi” referred to a sub-group of Islam and that the indication “Islam” on the identity card was thus correct. The applicant appealed on points of law, complaining that he was under an obligation to disclose his beliefs as a result of this obligatory indication on his identity card. He argued that this obligation contravened both the Convention (freedom of religion and conscience) and the Constitution (“no one shall be compelled ... to disclose his or her religious beliefs and convictions”). On 21 December 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court below without any other reasoning.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   In addition to Article 9, Mr Işık also relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), complaining that he was obliged to disclose his beliefs on his identity card, a public document that was used frequently in everyday life. He also complained about the denial of his request to have “Islam” on his identity card replaced by the name of his faith, “Alevi”. He argued that the existing indication did not represent the reality and that the proceedings leading to the denial of his request were objectionable, as they involved an assessment of his religion by the State.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs had a negative aspect, namely an individual’s right not to be obliged to disclose his or her religion or to act in a manner that might enable conclusions to be drawn as to whether or not he or she held such beliefs.   The Court did not find persuasive the Government’s argument that the indication of religion on identity cards (obligatory until 2006) did not constitute a measure that compelled Turkish citizens (and Mr Işık in particular) to disclose their religious convictions and beliefs. As regards the procedure whereby the applicant, in 2004, had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the rectification of his identity card, the Court took the view that, since it had led the State to make an assessment of the applicant’s faith, it had been in breach of the State’s duty of neutrality and impartiality in such matters.   The Government further contended that since the law of 2006 the applicant, in any event, could no longer claim that he was a victim of a violation of Article 9, because since then all Turkish citizens had been entitled to request that the information about religion on their identity cards be changed or that the appropriate entry be left blank. On this point the Court found that the law had not affected its assessment of the situation. The fact of having to apply to the authorities in writing for the deletion of the religion in civil registers and on identity cards, and similarly, the mere fact of having an identity card with the “religion” box left blank, obliged the individual to disclose, against his or her will, information concerning an aspect of his or her religion or most personal convictions. That was undoubtedly at odds with the principle of freedom not to manifest one’s religion or belief.   The Court pointed out that the breach in question had arisen not from the refusal to indicate the applicant’s faith (Alevi) 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.   The Court found, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 9. It further decided, by the same majority, that it did not need to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Articles 6 and 14.   As the applicant had not submitted any claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court did not make any award. Referring to Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the Court indicated that the deletion of the “religion” box on identity cards could be an appropriate form of reparation to put an end to the breach in question.   Judge Cabral Barreto expressed a dissenting opinion, which is appended to the judgment.     ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.