Europe, obvious consensus, Mr. Gérard Gonzalez
The Sahin v / Turkey is fundamental in that it tends to limit the risks of inconventionnalité edited measures against violators of the ban on the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols and after the decision Karaduman c / Turkey of 3 November 1993, already unfavorable to the applicants ... stops Sahin I and II delivered by the House on 29 June 2004 and by the Enlarged Board November 10, 2005 have the only difference that the latter acknowledges that the complaint submitted under Article 2 of Protocol 1 required a separate examination. But the solutions, they remain unchanged: the ban on headscarves at university is not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
In this case, a medical student was banned from wearing the Islamic headscarf in the internal regulations of the University of Istanbul, which also prohibits beards. She was thus prevented from accessing certain lectures and examinations and was the subject of disciplinary sanctions that were later amnestied. Meanwhile, however, the student continued his studies, veiled, Austria. The case was then brought before the European judges who decided the ban was conventional.
This judgment then there is a consecration of the Turkish concept of secularism, as suggested by Mr. Gérard Gonzalez? We can say yes, but in any event, only in the specific case of Turkey.
[...] In France, by contrast, these girls are minor, the absent Koranic schools. A permanent exclusion is perhaps at this level, disproportionate, staying no longer than correspondence courses. Indeed, the Supreme Court ended a practice somewhat odd: these girls were directed to Catholic schools. But the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 21 June 2005, Valida excluding a private school under contract with a veiled student whose rules prohibited the port. Is this not, at this stage disproportionate? [...]
[...] Even if the state decision remains subject to European supervision, particular importance is attached to national decision because the relationship between the state and religions give rise to profound differences. Therefore, French law banning the wearing of religious signs in primary distinguishing public and secondary has good days ahead. In addition, an analysis of Mr. Bernard Toulemonde shows the success of this law: few disputes, many same dialog if some questions about the identification of signs required or prohibited are delicate. [...]
[...] But first, there is no consensus on the fact that the veil would be an inferior man-woman event. Secondly, this argument can be turned against the Strasbourg Court, Muslim women, in any case, "before" wear a much more visible religious sign that Muslim men. There, of course, the problem then returns the binding nature of its port or not. But still, it may seem dangerous to enter so imprudently in claims under the theological debate and, besides, who do not even seem (maybe is it the most annoying) to have made a debate period! [...]
[...] The Court could have, it is true, to dwell on the question of religious veil or not, without, however, make a judgment. But it begs the debate by stating that "it is an act motivated or inspired by a religion or a religious belief [ . ] without ruling on the question whether this act, in any case, is the fulfillment of a religious duty After this preliminary rejection, the Court therefore thinks in two stages. First, it connects the veil a religious event. [...]
[...] Hoffmann against Austria of 23 June 1993: freedom of religion, discrimination, parental authority, Jehovah's witnesses, respect for family life. Kokkinakis against Greece May 1993: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, discrimination, Jehovah's Witnesses, proselytizing. Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svidetelli lehova na" (Christian Association of jehovah witnesses) against Bulgaria on 9 March 1998 new registration of an association, Jehovah's witnesses, freedom of religion. Keller against Germany 4 March 1998: school administration, Scientology, respect for the religious convictions of parents. Tsavachidis against Greece of 28 October 1997: freedom of association, Jehovah's witnesses, legal opening of a place of worship. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
