CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mai 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 75 May 2005 Tığ v. Turkey (dec.) - 8165/03 Decision 24.5.2005 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Student who had to finish his university year without his beard: inadmissible   While the applicant was in his third year at university, he was refused entry to the campus because he had a beard. The refusal was based on a university decree issued one year beforehand. The applicant asserted that he was entitled to have a beard and that the decree had no basis in law. He applied to have the decree set aside, but without success. He was subsequently able to continue and complete his course without a beard. Inadmissible under Article 8: In the domestic courts the applicant had challenged, in general terms, the rules that had served as a basis for refusing him access to the campus. Accordingly, even accepting that having a beard was an aspect of his physical appearance constituting part of his private life, the measure in question had been relatively limited in scope in that he had not been refused entry to the campus until more than a year after the rules in question had been issued. In addition, he had been able to continue and complete his studies: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 9: The applicant had submitted that he had a beard because it was part of his physical appearance; he had not claimed to have been inspired by any specific views or beliefs or, in particular, to be observing any religious precept. Accordingly, the measure in question could not as such have interfered with the applicant’s freedom of religion and conscience: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 10: Even supposing that the right to freedom of expression could encompass   a person’s right to express his views by the way in which he grew a beard, it had not been established that the applicant had been prevented from expressing a particular opinion within the meaning of Article 10 by the prohibition on beards: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: Even accepting that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable to higher education, the applicant had been admitted to university and had been able to complete his studies there, in spite of the implementation of the rules complained of. Accordingly, the measure in question had not amounted to interference with his right to education: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes