Published on 20 February 2023
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 35704/21 and 45628/21
Yakup Enes AKA against Türkiye
and İzzet TIRIŞ against Türkiye
lodged on 22 June 2021 and 1 September 2021 respectively
communicated on 1 February 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the demotion of the applicants as a result of the cancellation of certain questions (and therefore recalculation of the results) of an exam which they had taken in order to qualify for the post of deputy inspector.
The exam in question took place in 2009 and the applicants, being on the final list of successful candidates, started their nine-month vocational training soon after. As a result of the exam being challenged before an administrative court, some twelve questions were cancelled for being erroneous. Thereafter, on 13 April 2010, when the administrative proceedings were still ongoing, the exam results were recalculated for all participants with the result that the applicants no longer qualified for the final list. That being so, the legal department of the Ministry of Interior opined that all original participants who had been placed on the final list could continue with their education and would not be affected by the cancellation of the questions.
The applicants finished their training and were confirmed in their posts in July 2010. However, on 3 September 2014, the administration demoted them to their previous position on account of the recalculation of the exam results pursuant to the final administrative court decision.
The applicants appealed against their demotion before the administrative courts, but to no avail.
The applicants complain, in substance, under Article 6 of the Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court reached different conclusions in identical cases, breaching the principle of legal certainty. The applicants maintain in that respect that their submissions concerning the alleged inconsistency of case-law went unanswered before the relevant jurisdictions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the applicants’ allegation that the Supreme Administrative Court had reached different conclusions in cases that were identical, was the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention infringed (see, for example, Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29784/07, §§ 47-49, 18 July 2013)?
2. Did the Supreme Administrative Court adequately state reasons on which it based its decision in the applicants’ cases, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hülya Ebru Demirel v. Turkey, no. 30733/08, § 51, 19 June 2018, and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no. 61960/08, § 75, 2 December 2014)? In particular, did it respond to the applicants’ submissions concerning the different conclusion reached by the Supreme Administrative Court’s General Assembly of Administrative Proceedings Divisions in cases that were identical in fact and in law (see in this respect the applicants’ express reference to a decision of 3 June 2015, docket nos. E.2013/623 K.2015/2412)?