CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 novembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDACCE70D { width:24.38pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s798C5C46 { width:23.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     575   19.11.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASES OF TEKIN & SAHIN v. TURKEY   Tuesday 19 November 2002 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicants   The applications (nos. 41556/98 and 44774/98) were brought by two Turkish nationals, Zeynep Tekin, born in 1975 and living in Izmir, and Leyla Şahin, born in 1973. The cases concern a ban on the applicants wearing Islamic headscarves in Turkish higher-education establishments.   Summary of the facts   Tekin v. Turkey (no. 41556/98) At the material time Ms Tekin was a second-year student at the Nursing College ( Hemsirelik Yüksek Okulu ) of Ege University. The Higher Education Council ( Yüksek Ögretim Kurumu ) issued a circular dated 22 December 1988 requiring student nurses to wear a regulation cap during practical training. In December 1993 the applicant was given a reprimand for wearing an Islamic headscarf during practical training instead of the regulation cap. She nonetheless persisted in wearing the Islamic headscarf and on 23 December 1993 was excluded from classes for 15 days in accordance with the circular.   The applicant unsuccessfully challenged that disciplinary sanction in the Izmir Administrative Court, relying on the principle of secularism laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution. In a judgment of 16 October 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment.   Şahin v. Turkey (no. 44774/98) Ms Şahin is now a student at the Department of Medicine at Vienna University. At the material time she was a fifth-year medical student at Istanbul University.   On 23 February 1998 the Istanbul university authorities issued a circular stating that students wearing a beard or an Islamic headscarf would not be admitted to classes, training courses or tutorials. Moreover, on 13 March 1998 the Higher Education Council published an information note on regulation dress in higher-education establishments, stating that it was a disciplinary and criminal offence for students to wear Islamic headscarves in such establishments.   On 12 March 1998 the applicant was refused the right to sit written tests in one of her subjects because she was wearing an Islamic headscarf. Subsequently, and for the same reason, her application for enrolment was rejected, she was refused admission to a class, and could not sit further written tests. Lastly, on 3 June 1998 the Department gave her a reprimand for failing to comply with the university dress code.   Complaints   Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain of the ban on their wearing Islamic headscarves. They also complain of the unjustified interference with their right to education set out in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Mrs Şahin further alleges a breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), combined with Article 9 of the Convention, because she considers that the ban on wearing Islamic headscarves obliges students to choose between education and religion, and discriminates between believers and non-believers. She relies, lastly, on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression).   Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 March 1998 and 21 July 1998 respectively and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. They were declared admissible on 2 July 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), judges , Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Sükrü Alpaslan , Agent , Sait Güran , Counsel , Basri Yıldız , Didem   Kilislioğlu , Banur   Özaydın , Melmet Gülşen and Alev Günyaktı, Advisers ;   For the applicants:   Miss Tekin:   Halit Celik , Counsel .   Miss Sahin:   Stephen Grosz , Hüsnü Tuna , Counsel , Ahmet Selamet , Mark. Emery ,   Mahmut Erbay , Mustafa Özkaya , Advisers ;   Leyla Sahin will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.