PRIMARY SOURCE - LEYLA ŞAHİN v TURKEY [GC] - APP NO. 44774/98 - §109
“It is not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society”
“the meaning or impact of the public expression of a religious belief will differ according to time and context”
Source - Leyla Şahin v Turkey [GC], §109
Your Annotation
The Court is saying context matters. There is no single European approach to religion in public life.
That gives states room to respond differently depending on their own legal and social context.
But that cannot mean states simply decide for themselves.
Question to test
How much room does the margin actually give the state? What stops deference becoming inconsistent protection of the same Article 9 right?
context
consensus
deference
PRIMARY SOURCE - LEYLA ŞAHİN v TURKEY [GC] - §110
“This margin of appreciation goes hand in hand with a European supervision embracing both the law and the decisions applying it.”
“The Court's task is to determine whether the measures taken at national level were justified in principle and proportionate”
Source - Leyla Şahin v Turkey [GC], §110
This complicates my first thought
My first instinct was that a wide margin means Strasbourg simply defers to the state.
That is too broad. Şahin gives the state room to respond to context, but Strasbourg still supervises justification and proportionality.
COLLISIONWide margin does not equal unlimited national discretion.