JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SAJ Ó, VU Č INI Ć AND K Ū RIS

1. The majority found that there was no need to examine whether there had been a violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and of the latter Article taken in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and with Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. We respectfully disagree. These alleged violations fell to be examined on their own merits. The judgments in Folgerø and Others v. Norway ([GC], no. 15472/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ III ) and Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey (no. 1448/04 9 October 2007, in which, by the way, a violation of Article 14 was not even alleged by the applicants), to which a brief reference is made in paragraph 80 of the judgment, are not decisions of principle but of circumstantial practicality and do not have the force of a precedent for omitting to examine the claims in the present case. Earlier judgments can serve as binding precedents for future cases only where the issues raised by the applicants were examined and determined, and not where the Court refused to examine them.

2. Unlike the majority, we believe that there are additional – and more decisive – issues underlying the discrimination with regard to the syllabus. The much broader problem of alleged Alevi discrimination in the Turkish education system which the Court was called upon to examine, and should have examined, in the present case is of essentially the same nature as the one which the Court was asked to examine but declined to deal with in Hasan and Eylem Zengin , cited above. The very fact that this issue persists testifies to the need to examine it and not to turn a blind eye to the alleged violations of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. The situation requires examination under these Articles because the applicants have made a well ‑ substantiated claim that the Turkish education system treats Alevism merely as a culture and that their religion is therefore relegated to an inferior status in relation to the majority faith in the religious education syllabus. The Alevi faith has not been designated as a distinct religion with the associated right, granted to Christian and Jewish pupils, to opt out of compulsory religious education. Neither is the Alevi faith treated with a respect equal to that enjoyed by other branches of Islam. The majority ’ s analysis under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not address this underlying religious discrimination issue, but only considers the content of the current religious education syllabus.

3. In view of this, and if the situation regarding the religious education of Alevis (or other religious minorities or non-believers) in Turkish schools remains as it is, it is not unlikely that this renewed refusal to examine the above-mentioned alleged violations will engender further applications to this Court concerning the same issue from persons finding themselves in situations similar to the one at hand.

4. The above considerations apply to all the applicants in the present case who are listed in paragraph 1 of the judgment to the same extent as to the three applicants referred to in point 1 of the operative part.

[1] The semah can be described as a set of mystic al and aesthetic movements performed in a group in rhythmic harmony. They constitute one of the twelve religious services.