FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief
========================================== =======
Tuesday 27 October 2009
TURKEY: NO PROGRESS ON RELIGIOUS PROPERTY IN 2009
Turkish religious communities as diverse as the Alevi Muslims, Catholics,
the Greek Orthodox, Protestants, and the Syrian Orthodox Church have seen
no significant progress in 2009 in resolving long-standing property
problems, Otmar Oehring of the German Catholic charity Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte> notes
in a commentary for Forum 18 News Service <;. Hopes
were high, following meetings with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
US President Barack Obama’s address to the Turkish Parliament, that some
progress on this aspect of freedom of religion and belief would be made.
But there has been, for example, no progress on recognising Alevi Muslim
cem houses and continuing legal cases against the Mor Gabriel Syrian
Orthodox Monastery, while two recent victories in the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) have not led to the recovery of confiscated property.
Dr Oehring observes that the ECHR appears to be the only realistic hope of
resolving individual property cases – provided its judgments are
implemented.
TURKEY: NO PROGRESS ON RELIGIOUS PROPERTY IN 2009
By Otmar Oehring, Head of the Human Rights Office of Missio
<;
Religious communities in Turkey have seen no significant progress in 2009
in resolving the long-standing property problems faced by communities as
diverse as Alevi Muslims, Catholics, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek
Orthodox, Protestants, and the Syrian Orthodox Church.
Several legal cases in 2009 highlight the difficulties religious minority
communities face in regaining or retaining their property. The Mor Gabriel
Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Mardin in eastern Turkey is facing
long-running legal cases aiming to deprive it of some its lands. Despite
appeals by Pope Benedict XVI, the Turkish government has refused to hand
back for Christian worship St Paul’s Church in Tarsus, a significant
historical site for Christians and place of pilgrimage where worship has
been curtailed since summer 2009. And victories by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and Greek Orthodox foundations in the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg have not achieved the recovery of confiscated
communal property. Nor has the Patriarchate’s long-closed Halki seminary
been allowed to reopen.
Hopes were raised in 2009 that there would be significant improvements for
freedom of religion or belief in Turkey. Property problems – both affecting
the buildings themselves and the uses to which they are put – are but one
of a number of important issues, including: the ability of communities to
acquire genuine legal status and have their leaders fully recognised; the
need for fair teaching about religions and beliefs in schools; the need for
the right to train clergy; the non-recognition of conscientious objection
to military service; and continuing ultra-nationalist attacks on the full
equality of citizens who are either not ethnically Turkish, or secular or
Sunni Muslims (see F18News 22 October 2009
< e_id=1365>).
Legally-entrenched property problems
The largest group affected by property problems are Alevi Muslims, who
make up perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of the population. Their places of
worship (called cemevis or cem houses) are recognised only as cultural
houses (see F18News 12 October 2005
< e_id=670>). No cem houses have
been registered as places of worship in the land registry. Indeed, in
September 2009 the military removed the body of a dead solider from a cem
house – against the wishes of the man’s family – and took it to a Sunni
mosque run by the Diyanet, the state Presidency of Religious Affairs. This
non-recognition of cem houses as places of worship does not appear to be in
line with Law No. 4928 Amending Various Laws, which was passed in July 2003
as the 6th EU Harmonisation Law. Article 9 of this Law states:
"The term ‘mosque’ appearing in Construction Law No. 3194 of 3.5.1985 has
been replaced by ‘place of worship’, and Supplementary Article 2 of the
said Law has been amended as follows:
Supplementary Article 2 – In drawing up development plans, provisions will
be made for places of worship as necessary, taking into consideration the
conditions and future needs of the locality or region. Places of worship
may be established, provided the permission of the head of the public
authority in provinces, districts and towns is obtained and that the
development plan is complied with. Places of worship may not be allocated
for other purposes in contravention of the legislation on development."
However, the regulatory statutes of this Law define "places of worship" as
mosques, churches and synagogues – not cem-houses. On a number of occasions
this issue was raised in Parliament, but always with no success. The
objection to the recognition of cem houses as places of worship that the
authorities give is theological, that "Muslims worship in mosques". For the
state to use theological reasoning to deny recognition of places of worship
is clearly contrary to Turkey’s international commitments, and raises
serious questions about whether the state is interested in attempting to be
neutral and non-discriminatory between followers of religions and beliefs.
Two legal cases are currently pending about cem houses, and three
municipal councils have administratively recognised cem houses as places of
worship. But 20 to 30 percent of the population cannot be served by a mere
five legally or administratively recognised places of worship, even if both
the pending legal cases are successful. A major national change of policy
is necessary for the Alevis’ right to worship in their own places of
worship – which perhaps number over 1,000 – to be legally recognised.
Some had hoped that the 6th EU Harmonisation Law would enable places of
worship – such as Protestant churches and Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Halls –
to be built. However, the authorities still have wide discretionary powers
in this Law. For example, development plans have to be complied with, the
consent of the authorities is necessary, and it is unclear whether the law
refers to new places of worship or the conversion of existing premises into
places of worship. It is also wholly unclear who is entitled to apply for
permission to do this, as no religious communities in Turkey has legal
status in its own right – even if a few (mainly Protestant) communities
have established associations which have (unlike the communities
themselves) been recognised. In no case so far has this 2003 EU
Harmonisation Law facilitated the building of a place of worship.
The most recent Foundations Law does not affect whether or not a place of
worship can be built. And even for properties which were built as places of
worship, no answer has been given to the question of what should be done
regarding those properties which have been seized by the state and sold to
third parties (see F18News 13 March 2008
< e_id=1100>).
Nor is there an answer to the question of what should be done regarding
the so-called perished foundations (mülhak vakiflar). In many cases these
foundations only "perished" because the state altered the regulation in
such a way that the foundations could not fulfil these altered regulations.
Then the state took over the assets of such foundations.
One new church has been opened in 2009. But this was in a different
category from most places of worship, as it is on diplomatic territory.
During his first visit to Turkey as newly-elected head of the Russian
Orthodox Church in July, Patriarch Kirill was able to consecrate the first
Russian Orthodox church in Turkey for many years. The church is located on
Russian diplomatic premises, at the summer residence of the Consul in
Buyukdere near Istanbul.
Legal cases launched to remove property
Possibly the best-known legal property cases are those over the Mor
Gabriel Monastery in the south-eastern Mardin Province, brought by local
people who allege that the Monastery is illegally using their land. The
cases – which have been grinding on with no end in sight – are complex, and
involve the three-way relationship between the Monastery, the state and
local Kurdish tribes. It appears the first legal cases opened by two local
villages – Eglence and Yayvantepe – against the Monastery were organised by
Suleyman Celebi, the local tribal leader and a member of parliament for
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP).
A nearby Kurdish-populated village, Güngören, many of whose inhabitants
gain their employment from the Monastery, have not joined the cases.
Güngören’s Mayor has stated that relations with the Monastery remain good
and villagers see no reason to change their attitude, despite the rift this
has caused with the two other villages. Relations between the Monastery and
the mayors and inhabitants of Güngören have been good for many decades.
While it might appear to be a simple "land grab" by some villagers in
Eglence and Yayvantepe, others have seen another underlying motive: to get
rid of the Monastery entirely. This interpretation is supported by
discussions Forum 18 has had with people in the area. Some local people see
the Monastery as a weak target and believe the government would support
them in their moves.
Many Kurds – like many Turks – have a deep-rooted hostility to Christians
and other religious minorities, encouraged by the education system and the
mass media (see F18News 15 April 2008
< e_id=1115>). Powerful forces in
the so-called "deep state" support this intolerance (see F18News 22 October
2009 < 1365>).
The Mor Gabriel Monastery has long faced pressure. After problems in the
1960s and 1970s, including physical attacks on Christian-populated villages
and the burning of their crops, many local Syrian Orthodox Christians left
for Western Europe, mainly Germany and Sweden. Christians that remain still
face pressure, including occasional physical attacks.
One source of friction has been the recent preparation – for the first
time – of a land registry to record who owns the land. The company drawing
up the registry only recently came to the three villagers closest to the
Monastery. Christians who had emigrated long ago found it hard to establish
their ownership of their land, as the company relied heavily not only on
old maps but on oral testimony from Kurdish villagers. This oral testimony
– whose accuracy is open to question – has been to the detriment of the
Monastery.
While the legal cases have not so far had a direct impact on the
Monastery’s status, they have affected the monastic community’s morale.
Many irrelevant points and untrue accusations have come up in court, such
as that the community favours the break-up of Turkey, that it supports the
PKK Kurdish militant movement, that it engages in proselytism and makes use
of small children of unknown origin for that aim. The Monastery rejects
such charges, and points out that the forty or so children who live there
attend normal state-run schools. Although the first judge dismissed such
claims as irrelevant to the case, the media had already carried these
charges and they set a climate that could prove dangerous or even
life-threatening for the monks of the Monastery.
The community already suffers – as Forum 18 has observed in person –
constant threats from local people. But despite appeals from the Abbot, the
police have so far refused any special protection. Even the Turkish
Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee has joined such appeals for
protection – in vain.
When challenged about the case, government officials insist that they
cannot intervene, as Turkey is a state governed by law and that it is the
courts who will decide. Behind the scenes, though, it seems the government
is trying to find a solution – while at the same time wanting the
international community to see that the court has resolved it. Officials
say locally that they cannot get involved.
An example of the kind of cases the Monastery currently faces is the one
based on the regulations of Forest Law 6831 of 31 August 1956, which states
that forests may not be owned privately. However, the land claimed to be
"forest" in the case was owned and worked by the Monastery at the time the
Law was promulgated, and the working of the land only stopped when the
exodus of Christians – due to harassment by state authorities and local
people from the 1970s to the early 1990s – meant that people were no longer
available to work the land. Any land – not just the Monastery’s land –
legally becomes "forest" if it is not used agriculturally for more than 30
years. The Forest Law is a problem for many in Turkey, as land is often
expropriated by the authorities for the same reasons used in the Mor
Gabriel case. So there are those in Turkey who hope that this case will
come before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. This
might be an effective – but costly and time-consuming – way of resolving
these and other problems (see F18News 18 January 2007
< e_id=901>).
After discussions with state officials at a national level – who often
reveal that they are very well informed about the Monastery’s problems –
Forum 18 has formed the impression that they want the Mor Gabriel cases to
stop. Foreign interest – including from the Delegation of the European
Commission to Turkey – has been intense, with many foreign visitors making
the long journey to sit in the court room. This has disturbed the Turkish
authorities, who did not realise the impact the cases would have. Had such
interest not been shown, it is probable that the courts would already have
ruled against the Monastery.
During the conflict with the PKK the state had an interest in the Mor
Gabriel Monastery simply disappearing, as the authorities did not like
foreign visitors to the Monastery witnessing a conflict the state preferred
to keep hidden. Other monasteries – such as the Mor Hananyo (Deyrulzafaran)
Syrian Orthodox Monastery near Mardin, a major tourist centre not far from
the town’s airport – have not recently faced such intense pressure.
Nowadays, the government claims that the presence of such ancient
monasteries is a benefit to the country.
Can those who own places of worship use them?
Catholics and other Christians have also been disappointed that St Paul’s
church at Tarsus – built in the 1800s in the town of his birth by the Greek
Orthodox Church, but confiscated by the Turkish government in 1943 – has
once again reverted to being a museum. The Turkish authorities rejected
Pope Benedict XVI’s repeated appeals for the church to be handed over to
the Christian community for permanent use.
Christians had been allowed to use the church for worship between mid-2008
and mid-2009, during the Year of St Paul declared by Pope Benedict. Some
think the Turkish authorities never intended to allow services in the
church regularly, but bowed to international pressure. It was only in July
2009 that it became clear that this was a time-limited concession.
Now, local or foreign Christian groups wanting to hold worship in the
church once again have to pay the museum admission fee, and get permission
for their worship three days in advance from the Regional Council. The
Council imposes time limits to prevent worship disrupting the museum’s
opening times. "It is a lack of respect for the right to religious freedom
and freedom to worship," Bishop Luigi Padovese, the Apostolic Vicar for
Anatolia and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Turkey, told
the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano on 1 August.
While being able to worship in the church is an immediate concern, the
question of the Greek Orthodox Church regaining ownership of its church is
another concern. The Orthodox have not voiced any concerns over Catholics
using the church, and could file a legal case against Turkey to regain
their property. As long as the property issue is not resolved, the most
optimistic hopes are for a reversion to the arrangements made in 2008-9 – a
"Turkish solution" as some describe it.
The Catholic Church as such has no legal status in Turkey, and so no
properties. Churches, schools, and hospitals are owned by Catholic
religious orders and congregations. Indeed, in some cases the authorities
have argued that churches are owned by the individual saints the church is
named after (see F18News 18 January 2007
< e_id=901>). For some property,
the orders and congregations have documents proving their legal ownership.
But in many cases this is not so, and the land registry has been altered –
illegally – by the authorities to remove references to Catholic ownership
of the land. However, Turkish courts have in a significant number of cases
forced the authorities to recognise the property rights of Catholic
religious orders and congregations – in two cases the courts argued that a
legal entity having legal status outside Turkey must also have legal status
in Turkey.
But it is unclear in Turkish law what exactly a land title means. A
definitive resolution may be found if such legal cases reach the ECHR in
Strasbourg (see F18News 18 January 2007
< e_id=901>). A basis for a
resolution of this problem could be two lists from the early 20th century:
the "Liste des couvents, Eglises, Chapelles, établissements de bienfaisance
relevant de l’Ambassade de France annexe à l’Échange de lettres conclu
entre la France et la Turquie les 9-10 novembre 1901, relatif aux
établissements religieux, scolaires et hospitaliers français en territoire
ottoman, dit traité de Mytilène"; and the related so-called "Liste
Bompard", named after Maurice Bompard, a former ambassador to the Ottoman
Empire and French negotiator of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. The 1901 Mytilène
Treaty is binding for the Republic of Turkey, as legal successor of the
Ottoman Empire, and covers not only properties that are French in the
strict sense, but all properties that are under the protection of France
such as Catholic properties.
When will an ECHR judgment make a difference?
The former church-run orphanage on the island of Buyukada near Istanbul –
visited by Prime Minister Erdogan in August 2009 – has not yet been handed
back to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, despite its victory in the ECHR. The
Strasbourg court ruled in July 2008 – in a judgment that became final in
October 2008 (case No. 14340/05) – that the orphanage is the property of
the Patriarchate, and that it had been unjustly deprived of its ownership
by the Turkish courts (see F18News 21 October 2008
< e_id=1206>).
A Greek Orthodox foundation won another case in Strasbourg on 6 October
2009 (case No. 37646/03 and others), where the Turkish Land Registry had
refused to list the foundation as the legal owner of properties it holds
(see
< iewhbkm.asp?sessionId=32015669&skin=hudoc-en&a mp;action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166 DEA398649&key=76289&highlight=>).
The Buyukada case – the only one that directly concerns the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, as opposed to foundations affiliated to the Greek Orthodox
community – has another important aspect: recognition of the Patriarchate
as a legal entity should flow naturally from the ECHR decision. But will
the Turkish state now recognise the Patriarchate, something it has
repeatedly refused to do? Other historic religious communities (such as
Syrian Orthodox or Catholic dioceses) have never been recognised as legal
entities, while newer religious communities have had to gain legal status
(often with difficulty) as non-profit entities.
Perhaps predictably, nothing has happened on recognising the Patriarchate.
During their August visit to Buyukada, which came at Prime Minister
Erdogan’s request, he and Patriarch Bartholomew had an opportunity to
discuss the future of the former orphanage building. Asked by the Prime
Minister what he would like to do with it, the Patriarch said he wished to
use it as an ecology study centre and a place for inter-religious and
inter-Christian dialogue. Asked by Erdogan how he intended to finance such
a facility, Patriarch Bartholomew said he would have to seek funding for
this. The Prime Minister then said he would try to help. However, over a
year after the ECHR judgment became final, there has been no sign from the
Turkish authorities as to when and if at all they will implement the
judgment.
A complication in this case is that the Turkish authorities might assign
the property to an existing foundation that never owned the orphanage
buildings and land, and whose members – all of Greek origin – have no
connection with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In the 1990s the Armenian
Patriarchate had a similar problem, involving large amounts of property
around an Armenian church in the picturesque Cicek-Pasaj area of Istanbul.
It was only after long negotiations that the Armenian Patriarchate
convinced the members of the foundation’s council – all of whom were ethnic
Armenians – that it would be shameful for them to sell the property to
third parties and keep the money from the sale for themselves.
Expectations were high in 2009 – especially abroad – that the Orthodox
theological seminary on the island of Heybeliada (Halki), which was ordered
closed in 1971, might reopen. During his April 2009 visit to Turkey, US
President Barack Obama told Parliament in Ankara: "Freedom of religion and
expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens
the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such
an important signal inside Turkey and beyond." Speculation swirled in the
Turkish media that a solution over the seminary would be found. At the
Patriarch’s suggestion during their August visit to Buyukada, he and
Erdogan went the short distance to the hilltop Aiya Yorgi Church (see
F18News 22 October 2009
< e_id=1365>). Over coffee outside,
Patriarch Bartholomew gestured towards the building of the Halki seminary
on a nearby island, telling the Prime Minister he would be very happy in
future to welcome him there. Erdogan made no response.
No serious discussion of how to resolve issues
Discussion of the long-closed Halki seminary and related issues has now
come to a halt. No proper dialogue between the Government and the
Ecumenical Patriarchate has taken place. The Patriarchate has made it clear
to the authorities that such a dialogue could also take place between
representatives of both sides, and not necessarily the Patriarch himself on
one side and a top government member on the other.
No resolution to property problems in sight
Long-running obstructions to regaining or retaining religious property
have continued and the authorities have not taken opportunities to improve
the situation in 2009. Such a lack of implementation of a core part of the
internationally-recognised right to freedom of religion or belief raises
the question of whether Turkey sincerely has the desire and will to
guarantee religious freedom in practice for all of its citizens.
A definitive solution to the property-related problems of all religious
communities can only be reached if:
– all religious communities are recognised in their own right by the
Republic of Turkey, in line with Article 9 of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
– and an implementation law, describing in detail how this recognition
will be implemented, is passed by the Turkish Parliament.
Until these two steps are taken, solutions to religious property problems
can only realistically be expected from the European Court of Human Rights.
These rulings need to be implemented within the Court’s timescale, and not
left to be implemented – if at all – by the authorities at some unspecified
point in the future. (END)
– Dr Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte>, a
Catholic charity based in Germany, contributed this comment to Forum 18
News Service. Commentaries are personal views and do not necessarily
represent the views of F18News or Forum 18.
PDF and printer-friendly views of this article can be accessed from
< e_id=1368>. It may freely be
reproduced, redistributed or quoted from, with due acknowledgement to Forum
18 <;.
More analyses and commentaries on freedom of thought, conscience and
belief in Turkey can be found at
< mp;religion=all&country=68>.
A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at
< id=1351>.
A printer-friendly map of Turkey is available at
< s/atlas/index.html?Parent=mideast&Rootmap=turk ey>.
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at