Abstract
In Leyla Şahin vs Turkey, the prohibition on university students wearing the Islamic headscarf was found (by a majority of 16:1) not to violate Ms Şahin's freedom to manifest her religion. This article contends that the majority's arguments are flawed, and Judge Tulkens' solitary dissenting judgement should be preferred. The majority judgement fails to strike an appropriate balance between Ms Şahin's rights and those of Turkish society, and relies on an overbroad margin of appreciation. These deficiencies are accentuated by comparison with the wider jurisprudence of the Court and other national jurisdictions. The article concludes by considering Şahin's wider implications, particularly regarding the Court's ability to protect individual rights in a climate that increasingly calls for their effective protection.