Rumelia is often defined through a geographical narrative remembered over lost lands. Yet Rumelia is far more than that definition. At times, it served as a cornerstone in the rise of an empire; at other times, it symbolized the rebirth of a nation from its ashes and the very foundation of a republic.
Sometimes Rumelia appears before us through sorrowful migration stories. The migrations from Rumelia to Anatolia were not merely demographic movements; they were the result of historical ruptures and forced displacements. However, the story of Rumelia is not limited to those who migrated. As significant as the migration narratives extending from Rumelia to Anatolia is the experience of the Turks who remained behind. In this context, Western Thrace is not merely a region; it represents the living memory of Rumelian Turks and, at the same time, the center of an ongoing struggle for rights.
The separation between the Turks of Western Thrace and the Turks of Anatolia began following the 1877–1878 Ottoman–Russian War, known as the “93 War,” and the Treaty of San Stefano. Yet this series of historical separations did not diminish the identity consciousness or the spirit of resistance among the Turks of Western Thrace. Indeed, in 1913 they established the Provisional Government of Western Thrace — also known as the Turkish Republic of Western Thrace. However, despite their attachment to independence and resilience, history took a different course, and under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, they bec
Although the Treaty of Lausanne guarantees certain collective rights, the Turks of Western Thrace face serious obstacles in exercising these rights. The violations experienced in many areas are not merely cultural issues; they constitute significant concerns regarding human rights, the rule of law, and the ethics of coexistence.
One such issue arises within the framework of freedom of association. This right is granted to the Turks of Western Thrace under Article 40 of the Treaty of Lausanne. Beyond Lausanne, it is also protected under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Paragraph 1 of Article 11 states that everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and to freedom of association, including the right to form and join trade unions. Paragraph 2 allows restrictions only if prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Therefore, while this freedom may be restricted under specific conditions, a crucial question arises today: since when has the mere use of the word “Turk” posed a threat to national security or public order? Does identifying oneself as “Turk” fall within the exceptional circumstances outlined in paragraph 2? How does knowing and asserting one’s identity endanger society at large?
The European Court of Human Rights appears to think differently from the Greek authorities. In its judgment delivered on 24 June 2025 (Application No. 34724/18) concerning the registration application of the Turkish Women’s Cultural Association of Xanthi, the Court ruled that Greece had violated Article 11. The case was brought by Aysel Sağır, Tülin Hacıhalil, Ebru Kuruk, Gülcan Mümin, Lütfiye Nihatoğlu, Ayşe Uzun, and Sevil Şerifoğlu after Greek authorities rejected the association’s registration on the grounds that the minority defined under the Treaty of Lausanne is religious rather than ethnic, and therefore objected to the use of the term “Turkish” in the association’s name.
The Court held that this reasoning did not constitute a legitimate justification. Greece failed to provide evidence that the ethnic designation in the association’s name posed any threat to public order. Moreover, the Court emphasized that rejecting a term expressing a minority’s identity constitutes discrimination and is incompatible with the principles of tolerance and pluralism that underpin a democratic society.
Accordingly, the Court found the Greek authorities’ explanation unfounded and determined that the method they adopted constituted a violation. Unfortunately, the violation of the freedom of association of the Turks of Western Thrace is not limited to this case. Similar violations occurred in cases brought in 2007–2008 concerning the Turkish Union of Xanthi, the Turkish Women’s Cultural Association of Rodopi, and the Evros (Meriç) Minority Youth Association. In each instance, the Court reached the same conclusion: a violation of Article 11.
If we set aside the Court’s decisions and objectively examine the justification offered by the Greek authorities, does this mean that the Turks of Western Thrace have no right to establish associations bearing the word “Turkish” in their name?
It is true that under the Treaty of Lausanne, the minority definition is based on religion for both Türkiye and Greece. However, Article 40 of the Treaty grants minorities the right to establish not only religious and educational institutions but also their own social institutions. Furthermore, one of the core elements of the principle of legality in law is that “what is not prohibited by law is permitted.” According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the exercise of rights does not require prior authorization; restriction is the exception. Since the Treaty of Lausanne contains no provision prohibiting minorities from establishing institutions reflecting their ethnic identity, Greece’s argument lacks legal foundation.
For this reason, what is happening today in Western Thrace cannot be dismissed as a historical issue of the past. Alongside the migrations to Anatolia, Rumelian Turkish identity — assumed by some to have been left behind — remains alive, felt, and struggling in Western Thrace. This reality presents an important test of how sincerely contemporary Europe upholds its claim to the universality of human rights.
Thus, the Western Thrace issue is not merely a minority question; it represents a shared responsibility for all actors who claim to defend human rights as a universal principle. It is evident that preventing violations stemming from discomfort with the word “Turk” requires a rights-based approach grounded in memory, law, and human dignity — one that emphasizes monitoring, reporting, and principled advocacy.
Sources
-
HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights
-
Full Text of the Treaty of Lausanne
-
Compilation of ECHR Decisions (Yargıtay)
Zeynep ÇINAR
