Alevis are followers of an Islamic religious-ethical system that combines belief in the Imams with pagan beliefs. They constitute 20-30% of the population in Turkey. Alevism differs significantly from Sunni Islam, which is practiced by the majority of Turkish citizens.

Compulsory religion classes

Fourteen Turkish nationals, adherents of the Alevi faith and parents of children in secondary school, asked the Ministry of Education to initiate a consultation process with leading members of the Alevi community with a view to overhauling the curriculum of the religion and ethics classes to include Alevi culture and philosophy. They claimed that the content of the compulsory classes in religion and ethics in schools was based on the Sunni understanding of Islam. After being notified of the decision to reject their proposal, they challenged it in the administrative courts. The courts dismissed their appeal, relying on the expert report, which said that the curriculum did not give precedence to any particular faith and adopted a supra-denominational approach.

Relying on Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education), the parents lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. In the application, they complained that the content of the compulsory classes in religion and ethics in schools was based on the Sunni understanding of Islam, and that they, as parents, were deprived of the right to choose religious and philosophical convictions, in conformity with which their children are raised and educated.

Conflict of allegiance

In its judgment of September 16, 2014, the court referred to the important changes to the curriculum of the compulsory religion and ethics classes made in the wake of the Hasan and Eylem Zengin judgment from 2007. The court observed, however, that these changes had been limited to the inclusion of information about the various beliefs existing in Turkey, while the main aspects of the curriculum had not really been overhauled and predominantly focused on knowledge of Islam as practiced and interpreted by the Turkish Sunni majority. The ECtHR stated that it was not its role to take a stance on a question relating to Islamic theory, but it nevertheless emphasized the state’s duty of neutrality and impartiality in regulating matters of religion.

The fact that the curriculum of the religion and ethics classes gives greater prominence to Islam as practiced and interpreted by the majority of the Turkish population could not in itself be viewed as a departure from the principles of pluralism and objectivity. However, bearing in mind the particular features of the Alevi faith, the applicants could legitimately have considered that the approach adopted in the classes was likely to cause a conflict of allegiance for their children between the values being taught in school and their own values.

Exemptions

The court failed to see how such a conflict could be avoided in the absence of an appropriate exemption procedure. The Turkish system offered only Christian and Jewish pupils the possibility of being exempted from religion and ethics classes. Such an exemption was intended to protect the pupils from conflicts between the religious instruction given by the school and their parents’ religious or philosophical convictions. The court noted that almost all of the Council of Europe member states offered at least one route by which pupils could opt out of religious education classes, by providing for an exemption system or the option of studying an alternative subject, or by making attendance at religious studies classes entirely optional.

The court concluded that the Turkish education system was still inadequately equipped to ensure respect for parents’ convictions, and that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. As the applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, the court did not order it. Since the violation had arisen out of a structural problem, the ECtHR held that Turkey was to implement appropriate measures to remedy the situation, in particular by introducing a system whereby pupils could be exempted from religion and ethics classes without their parents having to disclose their own religious or philosophical convictions.

The ruling in this case recalls the 2010 Grzelak v. Poland judgment, which has yet to be executed by the Polish government. In this case, the parents of a primary school pupil made a request to school authorities to organize a class in ethics for him. Since their son did not attend religion class during his schooling, his school reports and certificates contained a straight line instead of a mark for “religion/ethics.” Because ethics classes were not available, the report was revealing about the religious beliefs of the family. The court held that there was a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).