## Facts

- Leyla Şahin, a Turkish national and practicing Muslim, studied medicine at Istanbul University and regarded wearing the Islamic headscarf as a religious duty.
- Istanbul University had regulations restricting headscarves since at least 1994; in February 1998 the Vice-Chancellor issued a circular refusing admission to lectures and examinations to students wearing the headscarf (and to men with beards).
- Because she wore a headscarf, Şahin was denied entry to lectures, refused enrollment in at least one course, and barred from at least one written examination.
- She received disciplinary sanctions, including a warning and a one-semester suspension linked to dress-rule violations and participation in an unauthorized protest; the sanctions were later annulled under an amnesty law.
- Turkish high courts had repeatedly held that headscarves at universities were incompatible with constitutional secularism and the neutrality of state education.
- Şahin later completed her medical studies in Vienna but pursued her application alleging violations of Convention rights.

## Issues

1. Whether restricting the wearing of the Islamic headscarf at a public university, and related disciplinary measures, violated Article 9 (freedom to manifest religion).
2. Whether denial of access to lectures, courses, and examinations due to the headscarf violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).
3. Whether the same measures also violated Articles 8 (private life), 10 (expression), and 14 (non-discrimination), separately or in conjunction with Article 9 and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber found an interference with Article 9 but held there was no violation because the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society.
- The Court held there was no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 because the restrictions did not impair the very essence of the right to education and were proportionate.
- The Court found no separate issues (and no additional violations) under Articles 8, 10, or 14 beyond the analysis under Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.

## Legal Principles

- A restriction on religious dress in a public educational institution may constitute an interference with the manifestation of religion under Article 9, requiring justification under Article 9(2).
- “Prescribed by law” may be satisfied through a sufficiently accessible and foreseeable framework derived from legislation, regulations, and settled domestic case law.
- Legitimate aims under Article 9(2) can include protection of the rights and freedoms of others and protection of public order, including in support of secularism and neutrality in state education.
- In assessing necessity and proportionality, states have a margin of appreciation in regulating religious symbols in public institutions, particularly where there is no clear European consensus and where domestic constitutional principles (such as secularism) are engaged.
- The right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 permits regulation; limitations must pursue legitimate aims and must not destroy the substance or effectiveness of the right.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that Turkey’s university headscarf restrictions were a legally grounded and proportionate means of protecting secular, neutral higher education and the rights of others, resulting in no violation of Article 9 or the right to education, and no separate issues under Articles 8, 10, or 14.


Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005)