DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SILVIS

The applicants, members of the Alevi faith, complain that their religion does not enjoy the same public support in Turkey as the Sunni branch of Islam. The violation of the Convention is to be found solely in the comparison between the two.

What would be left for our Court to consider if the difference in treatment between the two were removed from the case? In my view, very little.

Why should it be problematic in itself that:

( a ) services connected with Alevi religious practice are not considered services to the public;

( b ) Alevi places of worship ( cemevis ) are not granted any special status by the State;

( c ) Alevi leaders are not on the Government payroll as civil servants;

( d ) no special provision is made in the State budget for the practice of the Alevi faith?

The situation is no different in those countries of the Council of Europe where Church and State are separate in law and in practice.

There is no obligation under the Convention for the State to seek an active supporting role in matters of religion. For that reason I respectfully disagree with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 9 taken alone.

Nevertheless, when comparing the position of the Alevi faith with that of the Sunni Muslim faith in Turkey, it is clear that there has been a difference in treatment for which no objective and reasonable justification exists. This is therefore a typical religious discrimination case, nothing more.