## Facts

- İzzettin Doğan and 203 other Turkish nationals were adherents of the Alevi faith, a major religious community associated with Islam and long present in Turkey.
- Turkey operated a state-organized public religious service through the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), which effectively served the Sunni understanding of Islam.
- In 2005, the applicants petitioned the Prime Minister seeking (i) recognition of Alevi religious services as a public service, (ii) legal recognition of Alevi places of worship (*cemevis*) as places of worship, (iii) recruitment of Alevi religious leaders as civil servants, and (iv) budgetary provision for Alevi religious practice.
- The administration refused, stating it was impossible to grant the requests.
- The applicants joined a larger group (nearly 2,000 persons) in seeking judicial review; the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the claim as consistent with domestic legislation, and the Supreme Administrative Court rejected further appeal.
- The applicants complained that the denial of recognition and associated public benefits excluded them from the public religious service enjoyed by Sunni Muslims.

## Issues

1. Whether denying recognition and associated public religious infrastructure to the Alevi faith interfered with the applicants’ freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether providing comprehensive public religious services to Sunni Islam while almost totally excluding Alevis constituted unjustified discrimination on religious grounds under Article 14 taken together with Article 9.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9.
- The Court found the applicants were in a comparable situation to Sunni Muslims regarding access to public religious services, yet received less favorable treatment.
- The Court concluded Turkey failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the exclusion and exceeded its margin of appreciation; the disparity was disproportionate to any legitimate aim.
- The Court considered it unnecessary to deliver a separate ruling on Article 9 taken alone given its finding under Article 14 with Article 9.
- The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Beliefs meeting a threshold of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance fall within Article 9 protection.
- A state that establishes a comprehensive public religious service must apply objective and non-discriminatory criteria so religious communities seeking a status conferring advantages have a fair opportunity to obtain it.
- Differential treatment in the enjoyment of Article 9 rights violates Article 14 unless it has an objective and reasonable justification, meaning a legitimate aim and proportional means supported by relevant and sufficient reasons.
- Where a state confers extensive institutional and financial support on the majority religion, near-total exclusion of a comparable minority faith requires strong justification; absent compensatory measures, a marked imbalance may be disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that Turkey’s system of state-funded religious services, which substantially benefited Sunni Islam while denying comparable recognition and support to the Alevi community, amounted to unjustified religious discrimination in violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 9.


İzzettin Doğan & Others v. Turk., App. No. 62649/10 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 26, 2016)