quill.gif (3183 bytes)

Kalac v. Turkey, (1997) 27 EHRR 552, 558

Facts: The applicant was obliged to retire from his judge and claims that this obligation infringed his freedom of religion on the ground that it was based on his religious beliefs and practices.

Holding: the ECHR did nto find a violation of article 9 of the European Convention.

Reasoning: Article 9 listed various forms which manifestation of one's religion or belief might take, namely worship, teaching, practice and observance, but it did not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief. Moreover, an individual might need to take his specific situation into account. The system of military discipline by its very nature implied the possibility of placing limitations on certain rights and freedoms of members of armed forces which are incapable of being imposed on civilians. In the present case the applicant had been able to fulfil the obligations which constituted normal forms through which a Muslim practised his religion. The Supreme Military Council's order for the applicant's compulsory retirement was not based on his religious opinions and beliefs but on his conduct and attitude. Accordingly, the measure 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. There had been no violation


Human and Constitutional Rights Resource Page

Comparative Bills of Rights || Freedom of Religion