## Facts

- Leyla Şahin, a Turkish medical student who wore the Islamic headscarf for religious reasons, transferred in 1997 to Istanbul University’s Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine.
- In February 1998, the university issued a circular directing that students wearing the Islamic headscarf (or beards) would be refused admission to lectures, courses, and tutorials, and could face discipline if they insisted on attending.
- Relying on the circular, university authorities refused to enroll Şahin in a course, barred her from lectures, and denied her access to at least one written examination because she wore the headscarf.
- Şahin received disciplinary sanctions (a warning and a one-term suspension) related to protest activity; the penalties were later revoked under an amnesty law.
- After exhausting domestic remedies, she filed a human-rights application in July 1998 alleging violations of privacy, religion, expression, nondiscrimination, and the right to education.
- In 1999, she left Turkey and continued her medical studies in Vienna.
- A Chamber found no violation in 2004; the Grand Chamber accepted referral and issued final judgment in November 2005.

## Issues

1. Whether refusing a headscarf-wearing student admission to university lectures and exams interfered with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion), and if so whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether the measures violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).
3. Whether separate violations arose under Articles 8, 10, and 14, alone or in conjunction with Article 9 or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that the restrictions constituted an interference with Article 9 but found no violation because the interference satisfied Article 9(2).
- The Court held there was no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
- The Court found no separate issue under Articles 8 and 10, or under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.

## Legal Principles

- Wearing religious dress can constitute a manifestation of religion; restrictions on such manifestations require justification under the Convention’s limitation clauses.
- “Prescribed by law” requires a legal basis with adequate accessibility and foreseeability; “law” may include written and unwritten rules, including authoritative judicial decisions.
- Protecting the rights and freedoms of others and protecting public order are legitimate aims for limiting religious manifestation; constitutional secularism may be treated as relevant to those aims in a given national context.
- In regulating the relationship between the state and religion, especially in public education, states may receive a wide margin of appreciation where European practice lacks consensus.
- Proportionality may be supported by the educational setting and the restriction’s confined scope (e.g., within public universities), including concerns about maintaining secularism, pluralism, and avoiding coercion or pressure on others.
- The right to education guarantees access to existing institutions but is subject to regulation; limits must pursue legitimate aims, be proportionate, and not impair the essence of the right.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Istanbul University’s headscarf restrictions as sufficiently grounded in domestic law and proportionate to legitimate aims tied to secularism, public order, and others’ rights, concluding that excluding a headscarf-wearing student from certain university activities did not violate either freedom of religion or the right to education.


Leyla Şahin v. Turk., App. No. 44774/98 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005)