The Prohibition of Discrimination under European Human ... - cridho

■ THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ■
neutral regulations. These factors are the centrality of the particular religious manifestation to the religious belief
in question ; the burden of providing an exception to the general rule in order to accommodate that religious
manifestation ; and the question whether the employee has voluntarily accepted the regulation imposing the
restriction to his or her religious manifestation, implying a waiver of his/her right to free exercise of religion125 .
The case of Kalaç illustrates these different dimensions. 130 The applicant, a judge advocate in the Turkish air force,
complained that he had been ordered to retire, together with two other officers and twenty-eight noncommissioned
officers, for what the Turkish authorities considered to constitute breaches of discipline and
scandalous conduct: the conduct and attitude of Mr Kalaç had led these authorities to conclude that he had
adopted « unlawful fundamentalist opinions », in becoming a member of the Muslim fundamentalist Süleyman
sect. Declining the invitation of the applicant to find a breach of Article 9 of the Convention protecting freedom of
religion, the European Court of Human Rights considered, on the contrary, that in choosing to pursue a military
career Mr Kalaç was « accepting of his own accord a system of military discipline that by its very nature implied the
possibility of placing on certain of the rights and freedoms of members of the armed forces limitations incapable
of being imposed on civilians », 131 and it noted that « the applicant, within the limits imposed by the requirements
of military life, was able to fulfil the obligations which constitute the normal forms through which a Muslim
practises his religion »: 132
30. The Supreme Military Council's order was, moreover, not based on Group Captain Kalaç's religious opinions
and beliefs or the way he had performed his religious duties but on his conduct and attitude [the applicant
had allegedly participated in the activities of the Süleyman community, had given it legal assistance, had
taken part in training sessions and had intervened on a number of occasions in the appointment of
servicemen who were members of the sect]. According to the Turkish authorities, this conduct breached
military discipline and infringed the principle of secularism.
31. The Court accordingly concludes that the applicant's compulsory retirement did not amount to an
interference with the right guaranteed by Article 9 since it was not prompted by the way the applicant
manifested his religion.
The question of the wearing of the headscarf by Muslim women constitutes another example133 . In a judgment of
29 June 2004 which the applicants are at the time of writing seeking to have referred to the Grand Chamber of the
Court, a Chamber constituted within the 4th section of the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant
129
On this latter criterion, see Ahmad v. the United Kingdom, Appl. N° 8160/78, Commission decision of 12 March 1981, D.R. 22, p. 27 (schoolteacher
having converted to Islam when already employed, and then requesting from his employer to be authorized to attend the Friday prayers); a
similar reasoning is followed by the European Court of Justice in Case 130/75, Prais v. Council, ECR [1976] 1599. See also P. Frumer, La
renonciation aux droits et libertés. La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme à l’épreuve de la volonté individuelle, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2001,
pp. 381-394.
130
Eur. Ct. HR, Kalaç v.Turkey (Appl. N° 20704/92), judgment of 1 July 1997, Rep. 1997-IV, p. 1209.
131
132
133
Referring to its judgment of 8 june 1976 in the case of Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (Series A no. 22, p. 24, para. 57), the Court recalled
that « States may adopt for their armies disciplinary regulations forbidding this or that type of conduct, in particular an attitude inimical to an
established order reflecting the requirements of military service ».
Kalaç, § 29.The Court remarked that “For example, he was in particular permitted to pray five times a day and to perform his other religious
duties, such as keeping the fast of Ramadan and attending Friday prayers at the mosque.”
For recent studies on this issue, see E. Brems,“De hoofddoek als constitutionele kopzorg”, Tijdschrift voor Bestuurs- en Publiekrecht, 2004, pp.
323-360; E. Bribosia and I. Rorive,“Le voile à l’école: une Europe divisée”, Rev. trim. dr. h., 2004, pp. 951-984; T Loenen,“Hoofddoeken voor de klas
en in de rechtbank: op weg naar een multicultureel publiek domein?”, NJCM-Bull., 2001, pp. 851-869; C.W. Maris van Sandelingenambacht,
“Private deugden en publieke ondeugden: hoofddoekjes in de openbare school?”, NJCM-Bull., 2004, pp. 992-998.
47
thematic report
PART III