Freedom of religion and conscience protects believing, not believing, changing one’s belief and not being compelled to disclose it. Manifesting belief through worship, teaching or conduct is also guaranteed; however, this manifestation may be limited under certain conditions. The existence of a belief in a person’s inner world and practices that affect the rights of others are not subject to the same assessment. In an alleged violation, the statutory basis, the aim and the concrete necessity of the interference are examined separately. [1; 2]
This article is for general information. The special legislation applicable to education, employment, penal enforcement and public services, and the date of the event, must be assessed on the case file.
The scope of protection is not limited to the belief of the majority
Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protect different religions and beliefs in a pluralistic society. An atheist or agnostic outlook and not belonging to any religion are also important from the standpoint of protection. The State’s task is not to decide which belief is true. However, not every personal preference is accepted as a claim of belief within the scope of freedom of religion or conscience; criteria such as consistency, seriousness and importance are assessed. [2; 7]
A person should not be subjected to pressure for not disclosing their belief, not taking part in a particular act of worship or not adopting a religious practice. Making access to a public service unnecessarily conditional on a declaration of religious affiliation may also create a problem. The application should show what information is requested, on what authority, and what the consequence of not disclosing it is.
Secularism and neutrality
Secularism cannot be used as a ground that does away with an individual’s freedom of religion and conscience. The neutrality of public authorities toward different beliefs and their equal treatment of them are important. How neutrality is to be applied to a particular duty is assessed together with the nature of the service, the rights of others and statutory regulations. A single rule on dress or worship cannot be derived for all professions, institutions and activities. [5]
Under what conditions can the manifestation of belief be limited?
A limitation must rest on an accessible and foreseeable legal basis. Articles 13 and 24 of the Constitution and Article 9(2) of the ECHR, each within its own scope, are considered together. The aim asserted in terms of public safety, public order, health, morals or the rights of others must be linked to the concrete justification for the interference. Abstract concern or the displeasure of the majority is not sufficient. [1; 2]
In the proportionality review, the possibility of achieving the same aim with a lighter measure is important. For example, a security check may need to be carried out; however, the place, method and privacy of the check and the alternatives to it are assessed separately. Failure to discuss at all a workable solution proposed by the applicant is a deficiency that must be explained in judicial review.
The opposing party may invoke continuity of service, occupational safety or institutional order. It should be examined whether the claim shows a genuine risk, whether it is applied equally to different persons and the duration of the restriction. The applicant, too, must make concrete the link between the belief and the conduct and the burden placed on them.
The Tuğba Arslan decision: statutory basis and applicant status
The decision Tuğba Arslan, Application No. 2014/256, June 25, 2014 examined the prevention of an attorney wearing a headscarf from attending a hearing. The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) held that the interference with freedom of religion and conscience did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness and that the prohibition of discrimination had also been violated. On the other hand, the complaints that the attorney raised in their own name, concerning the defense and access to court rights belonging to the client, were declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction ratione personae. [5]
The decision offers guidance in two respects: referring to an earlier judicial decision or to general practice does not always take the place of a statutory basis; and the attorney’s personal right and the right of the person represented must be shown separately. The reasoning of the decision does not mean that every religious act must be accepted without limit in all institutions. The specific conditions of the concrete interference are examined.
Security checks and belief in penal enforcement
The Esra Nur Özbey decision
The decision Esra Nur Özbey, Application No. 2013/7443, May 20, 2015 assessed the practice at a courthouse security check. The Constitutional Court held that freedom of religion and conscience had been violated, noting that it had not been explained why it was necessary for the person to take off her overcoat in a place where everyone could see and without other measures being taken. The ill-treatment claim, on the other hand, was declared inadmissible because the application routes had not been exhausted. [6, §§ 91–99 and the judgment]
This distinction shows that a single event may require different ordinary remedies for different rights. The examination of a complaint concerning freedom of religion does not mean that all other complaints concerning the same event are also procedurally ready.
The holy book and the general publication quota
In the decision Guvanch Saparmadov, Application No. 2020/26196, June 11, 2025, the Constitutional Court held that subjecting the holy book and its translation to the general limit on the number of publications in a penal institution violated freedom of religion and conscience. The freedom of expression complaint in the same application, concerning the general limit on the number of books, was found manifestly ill-founded. [8, §§ 12–27]
The decision shows that the special nature of the religious need must be assessed; it does not lead to the conclusion that every publication and security rule of an institution is invalid. In the application, the nature of the requested work, the rejection of the request and the alternatives offered to the person must be documented.
Disputes in education and working life
As regards religious education, the provision in Article 24 of the Constitution and the guarantee of respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of parents in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR are considered together. The objective and pluralistic presentation of the curriculum, the operation of the exemption procedure and whether people are compelled to disclose their beliefs are important. The name of a course does not by itself determine whether its content conforms to constitutional review. [1; 2]
In working life, the status of public servant and that of employee must be distinguished. A disciplinary penalty imposed on a public servant is generally examined in administrative courts; a termination or discrimination in a private employment relationship is examined through labor law routes. It is examined how the need asserted by the employee can be reconciled with occupational safety or the requirements of the service. A religious ground does not automatically remove all obligations of the employment relationship; nor can the employer apply a measure that produces a discriminatory outcome without making a concrete assessment.
How is the application route chosen?
| Interference | Primary legal review | Required documents |
|---|---|---|
| Public authority decision or disciplinary penalty | Special objection route and administrative action | The act, its grounds, service records, earlier requests |
| Discrimination or termination in the employment relationship | Mediation and labor court requirements | Employment contract, termination notice, comparable practices |
| Penal institution practice | Complaint to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) | Decision of the institution, petition and responses |
| Threat, force or obstruction constituting an offense | Application to the public prosecutor’s office and the relevant protection route | Messages, records, witnesses and lawful recordings |
In an administrative action, the general time limit is sixty days from written notification; special time limits and the effect of an administrative application are examined separately. For a complaint to the enforcement judgeship, there is generally a fifteen-day limit from learning of the act and, in any case, a thirty-day limit from the act. For reinstatement claims, the rule of applying to a mediator within one month from the service of the termination notice and filing an action within two weeks from the final report of failure to reach an agreement is important. The time limit in one area does not apply to another. [9; 10; 11]
In events with a discrimination dimension, the route of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu, TİHEK) may also be considered; however, the scope of this route, its preliminary application conditions and its limits regarding pending proceedings must be examined separately. It should not be assumed that applying to the Institution protects all litigation time limits in every case. [12]
Effective application to the Constitutional Court and redress
The applicant must first use the appropriate ordinary routes in due form. The link of the interference with belief, its legal basis, its consequences and proposals for lighter solutions should be raised at this stage. Bringing a new fundamental complaint to the Constitutional Court for the first time only may give rise to a problem of exhaustion. As a rule, a thirty-day time limit applies from learning of the final decision. [3]
An attorney may file the application through the UYAP Attorney Portal. The form, the document of representation, the relevant decisions and the records showing when the decision was learned must be completed. Alongside a brief statement of belief, the rejected request and the real effect of the decision should be shown. Sensitive religious or health data should not be disclosed publicly beyond what is necessary. [4]
The request should be appropriate to the source of the violation: retrial, assessment of a continuing restriction, or, if the conditions are met, compensation may be requested to remedy the consequences of the decision. A violation decision of the Constitutional Court does not always provide a specific amount of compensation. For the route to the European Court of Human Rights, too, the common sphere of protection, domestic remedies and the general four-month time limit are examined separately. [2; 3]
For procedural preparation, the articles on admissibility criteria and, for calculating time limits, on the time limit for applying to the Constitutional Court are complementary.
Which distinctions determine the outcome in a freedom of belief case file?
Compelling disclosure of belief and manifesting belief are different
A person’s adopting or changing a belief or having no belief at all is assessed separately from reflecting it to the outside world through dress, worship and education. Exerting pressure on the first area is not the same as a lawful and proportionate limitation on conduct that is manifested externally. Requiring a person to explain their religion in detail in an application to a public authority may also create an independent problem. The information genuinely necessary for the legal review must be distinguished from a request for documents that needlessly exposes belief. [1; 2; 7]
The connection of the asserted conduct with belief must be explained; but a public authority cannot act as the authority that determines the truth of a person’s belief or the religious legitimacy of a denomination. The neutrality of the State does not mean taking the belief of the majority as the yardstick and protecting others less. The application text should therefore show not only personal hurt but also the public act performed and the effect of that act on the freedom.
With which documents is an exemption request at school supported?
The distinction between teaching of religious culture and religious education aimed at inculcating a particular belief is important. In a dispute, the name of the course should not be relied on alone; the curriculum of the relevant school year, the book used, the content of the examination, the conditions of exemption and the situation the student actually experiences should be examined. No automatic result for all later years can be drawn from a decision on a past curriculum. The demand for respect for the parent’s religious and philosophical convictions and the child’s freedom of education and belief must also be properly framed in terms of applicant status. [1; 2; 7]
The petition requesting exemption, the response of rejection and the service record should be kept. Merely holding an oral discussion may make it harder to show the act at issue and the date of learning. If the school year is continuing, the need for interim protection is assessed separately. The request should be directed at remedying the concrete interference rather than at an uncertain solution that would lead to the student’s complete removal from education.
How is the safety ground discussed in the workplace?
The employer’s invoking safety, hygiene or the performance of the service does not end the review. The work done, the genuine risk, the effect of the practice on all employees and whether lighter options exist are examined. However, freedom of belief does not provide unconditional exemption from all requirements of the work. The attorney should make concrete the rules applied in similar duties and the claim that different treatment was applied. The action to be brought against the administrative act of a public servant and the routes to be used because of a private employer’s termination are separate. [1; 2; 9; 11]
In a discrimination complaint, a comparable situation and different treatment are shown; an interference with freedom of religion, on the other hand, is examined under its own conditions. Asserting two rights in the same event is possible, but the facts of the two separate reviews must be explained. The effect of applications to institutions such as the Human Rights and Equality Institution on litigation time limits should not be assumed without examining the relevant special regulation. [12]
How should the three Constitutional Court decisions be read together?
Although the common subject in the decisions Tuğba Arslan, Esra Nur Özbey and Guvanch Saparmadov is freedom of religion, the form of the interference differs. In the first, religious dress during the practice of a profession; in the second, the method of carrying out a security check; and in the third, access to religious publications in a penal institution were discussed. It is therefore not sufficient to transfer the result in one decision to another event merely under the heading “freedom of religion.” The applicant must explain on what ground the limitation in their own case was applied and in which respect it resembles the legal question in the precedent decision. [5, 6, 8]
The statutory basis and the method of application are separate issues
The statutory-basis review in the Tuğba Arslan decision shows the importance of questioning the authority on which a rule interfering with the practice of a profession rests. In the Esra Nur Özbey decision, on the other hand, besides the aim of the security check, how it was applied and whether a less restrictive method was explained become important. It is thus seen that a general explanation such as “it was done for security” does not end the review. The legal assessment investigates the link between the aim and the concrete method. [5, 6]
For example, when identity or a security risk needs to be checked, it may be discussed whether the procedure can be carried out in an environment that protects privacy more. However, it is not assumed in advance that every alternative can be applied by the institution under all conditions. The practical possibility of the alternative, the nature of the service and the concrete risk must be explained. Why the solution proposed by the applicant was found insufficient should also be visible in the reasoning of the decision. In such a case file, rather than attaching only the prohibition decision, the request for an alternative method and the response given should be submitted together.
Access to the holy book and access to all publications are not the same
The different complaint outcomes in the Guvanch Saparmadov decision show the need to characterize each request in the application separately. A request for a publication directly connected with religious life and a complaint against the general publication quota were not treated as the subject of the same review. This distinction requires the applicant to explain the nature of the publication wanted, its function in their religious life and the ground for rejection. It cannot be concluded that every book holds a privileged position within the scope of religious freedom. [8]
In respect of a penal institution, it is important that the request be made in writing, that the title and edition of the book be stated, that a decision of rejection be obtained and that the appropriate complaint route be used. A document showing only that the book was sent to the institution does not always explain on what ground the administration blocked access. In the case file, it should be determined which of the prohibition, the quota, the delivery procedure or the security review was applied. Thus the subject of the application does not become a hypothetical prohibition whose occurrence is not documented.
When should a discrimination claim be set up separately?
An interference with freedom of religion and a discrimination claim may be connected; however, the explanation of the two is not the same. If discrimination is asserted, it must be shown what differential treatment was applied, its relation to religion or belief and why the compared situations are similar in the relevant respects. How different clothing or similar needs are treated in the same institution may be important in this regard. However, superficial similarity is not sufficient; the duty, the security conditions and the nature of the request must also be assessed. [1, Arts. 10 and 24; 5]
The assessment of a discrimination dimension alongside freedom of religion in the Tuğba Arslan decision reveals the importance of the applicant making the concrete differential treatment visible. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that every violation of freedom of religion also involves discrimination. The effects of a rule applied equally may also be examined; but the explanation of this cannot be completed merely with the statements “the same rule was applied to everyone” or “I was treated unjustly.” The burden the rule places on the person and the institution’s explanation need to be assessed together.
How is an interference at a private workplace brought before the Constitutional Court?
In a dispute arising from the conduct of a private employer, the structure of the individual application is different. The employer’s act is not presented as if it were directly an act of a public authority. First, the judicial routes competent to examine the dispute are used; at the constitutional stage, whether the courts properly assessed the conflicting interests is discussed. The requirements of the work, the effect on the employee, the arrangements proposed by the applicant and the employer’s response to them are therefore important. [1, 3]
For example, in the rejection of a request concerning working conditions, the contract, the workplace rule and the actual practice should be read together. It is examined whether the rule was operated only for a particular employee, how it was applied before and whether the grounds concerning the performance of the service are concrete. The applicant should not assume that they can complete an incomplete file by presenting for the first time before the Constitutional Court fundamental facts that they did not raise in ordinary proceedings. The rights claim should be kept visible at the appropriate application and trial stages from the very beginning of the event.
Applicant status is also important, particularly in professional disputes. While asserting their own religious freedom, a person cannot automatically exercise in their own name the right to defense or education of the person they serve. The holder of each right, the relationship of representation and direct effect must be determined separately. The different admissibility assessments in the Tuğba Arslan decision show this limit. A strong application correctly establishes the link between the applicant’s own right and the interference, rather than increasing the number of rights. [5]
For details on the subject, you may also see our article on qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions. For our firm’s work in this field, you may see the page on Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications.
Conclusion
In a dispute over freedom of religion and conscience, what is decisive is not the person’s defending their belief in general terms but showing the concrete interference and the possible solutions against it. When the statutory basis, equal application, the lighter means and the correct applicant status are examined together, the rights claim becomes reviewable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the right not to believe also protected?
Yes. Not holding a religion or belief and not being compelled to disclose one’s belief are also within the scope of the guarantee.
Is every act based on belief unlimited?
No. The manifestation of belief may be limited under the applicable constitutional and conventional conditions.
Can secularism alone be a ground for a ban?
Without a concrete statutory basis and the necessary assessment, a general emphasis on secularism is not sufficient.
Can an attorney assert a client’s right in their own name?
Personal victim status and representation must be kept apart. Representation in due form is required for the client’s right.
Does every limit on books in prison violate freedom of religion?
No. The holy book and the nature of the religious need are assessed separately from general limits on publications.
Does a violation decision necessarily mean that money will be paid?
No. Appropriate redress may be a retrial or another outcome; compensation is assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Constitution, Arts. 10, 13, 24, 42. Text.
2 — ECHR, Arts. 9, 14, 35; Protocol No. 1, Art. 2. Text.
3 — Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50. Text.
4 — Constitutional Court, UYAP Attorney Portal application guide. Guide.
5 — Constitutional Court Plenary Assembly, Tuğba Arslan, Application No. 2014/256, June 25, 2014. Decision.
6 — Constitutional Court, Esra Nur Özbey, Application No. 2013/7443, May 20, 2015. Decision.
7 — Jim Murdoch, “Protection of the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion” (“Düşünce, Vicdan ve Din Özgürlüğü Hakkının Korunması”), Council of Europe human rights handbook; sections on the scope of protection and the manifestation of belief. Turkish edition.
8 — Constitutional Court, Guvanch Saparmadov, Application No. 2020/26196, June 11, 2025. Decision.
9 — Law No. 2577, Arts. 7, 11. Text.
10 — Law No. 4675, Art. 5. Text.
11 — Labor Law No. 4857, Art. 20. Text.
12 — Law No. 6701 on the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye, Art. 17. Text.