SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41886/05
Tarkan CEYRAN against Turkey
and 72 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. All applicants initiated proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and their cases were dismissed.
5. The details of the applications may be found in the appendix.
B. Relevant domestic law
6. A description of the domestic law at the material time may be found in Tanışma v. Turkey (no. 32219/05, §§ 29-47, 17 November 2015), and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000).
7. Following a referendum held on 16 April 2017, Law no. 6771 was adopted. According to this new law, Articles 145 and 157 of the Constitution were repealed and the Supreme Military Administrative Court was abolished. Furthermore, the following paragraph was added to Article 142 of the Constitution:
“... No military courts shall be formed other than disciplinary courts. However, in a state of war, military courts may be formed with jurisdiction to try offences committed by military personnel in relation to their duties.”
8. On 21 March 2018 Law no. 7103 was enacted; it was published in the Official Gazette on 27 March 2018. Section 23 of Law no. 7103 amends the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577) to state that all applicants who currently have an application pending before the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court, may request a retrial before the Ankara Administrative Court within three months of notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of unfairness in the proceedings held before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In this connection, they argued that the Supreme Military Administrative Court could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal.
10. Some of the applicants brought other complaints under different Articles of the Convention, and these are indicated in the appended table.
THE LAW
11. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
12. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, since the two military officers who had sat on the bench of the Supreme Military Administrative Court had remained under the authority of the military hierarchy of the military authorities and had not been afforded the same judicial guarantees as other military judges. The applicants raised further complaints under different Articles of the Convention, however as they are closely linked with the alleged lack of fairness of the proceedings, the Court will examine them all under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
13. The Government informed the Court that on 21 March 2018 Law no. 7103 had been enacted and published in the Official Gazette on 27 March 2018. They pointed out that Section 23 of Law no. 7103 had amended the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577) to state that all applicants who currently have a pending application before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court may request a retrial before the Ankara Administrative Court within three months of the notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decisions on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Accordingly, they maintained that the present applications should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
14. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule, contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Accordingly, this rule requires applicants first to use the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before the Court for their acts. Yet, the rule is based on the assumption that the domestic system provides an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 117, 20 March 2018; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 75, 12 October 2010; and İçyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, ECHR 2006-I).
15. The assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court. However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts), and İçyer, cited above).
16. The Court recalls that in its judgment in the case of Tanışma v. Turkey (no. 32219/05, 17 November 2015), it has examined the legal problem at issue and ruled that the Supreme Military Administrative Court could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As a result, in order to provide redress for similar complaints at domestic level and to reduce the number of applications pending before the Court, as of 16 April 2017 the Supreme Military Administrative Court has been abolished. Subsequently, by Law no. 7103 dated on 21 March 2018, a genuine opportunity to obtain a fresh trial before a civil administrative court for all applications that are currently pending before the Court, was adopted.
17. In its decision in the case of Baysal v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 29698/11, 22 May 2018), the Court declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court considered, in particular, that this new remedy was a priori accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the fairness of proceedings.
18. The Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Baysal (cited above) and observes that in the present cases all applicants who have a pending case before the Court concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court have now the possibility of requesting a retrial before the Ankara Administrative Court within three months of the notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies. As a result, the Ankara Administrative Court will be called on to conduct a fresh examination of the cases and an appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Ankara Administrative Court. The applicants may further bring an individual application to the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. Should the applicants still consider themselves to be the victim of the alleged violation, it would be open to them to lodge a new application with the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Convention.
19. The Court further notes that this fresh examination would also remedy the remaining complaints of the applicants (see Baysal, cited above, § 17).
20. It follows that the present applications must, as a whole, be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 November 2018.
Hasan BakırcıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application no
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Case specific details
Other complaints
41886/05
02/11/2005
Tarkan CEYRAN
01/01/1979
Adana
Ali Mehmet KOCAOĞLU
In 2003 the applicant was admitted to military school as a cadet. Subsequently, on 10 July 2004 he was expelled on the ground that he had not met the admission conditions. Some documents which were used as a basis for this decision were classified as secret and were not disclosed to the applicant in the course of the proceedings. On 23 July 2004 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (“the SMAC”) to have the annulment of the decision. On 23 March 2005 the SMAC, relying on the classified investigation reports submitted by the Ministry of Defence, rejected the applicant’s case (no. 2004/667E, 2005/290K). On 25 May 2005 the applicant’s rectification request was dismissed (no. 2005/1080E, 2005/43K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 about his inability to have access to the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence.
14723/07
28/03/2007
Murat İNEKÇİ
10/01/1971
Kahramanmaraş
Ayla BAHTİYAR
In 1991 the applicant joined the army to perform his compulsory military service. On 14 August 1991he was diagnosed with hearing loss and declared unfit for military service. Subsequent to this report, the applicant was discharged from military service. On 11 April 2003 the applicant applied to the General Directorate of Retired Civil Servants’ Fund asking for disability benefits. On 26 September 2003 his request was rejected. On 2 June 2005 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC. On 2 March 2006 the case was dismissed (no. 2005/1044E, 2006/293K). On 19 October 2006 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (no. 2006/1108E, 2006/1151K).
The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the SMAC failed in the assessment of the facts.
Under Article 8, the applicant also maintained that his right to private and family life had been adversely affected as a result of his hearing loss, which had been caused during his military service.
56266/08
12/11/2008
Talat BETON
01/01/1960
Ankara
Abdullah KAYA
The applicant who had been living abroad for several years applied to the domestic authorities in 1991 to take advantage of the right to complete short term military service upon the condition of paying a certain amount of money. The applicant allegedly paid the due amount in three instalments and completed his short term military service. On 6 December 2006 the Ministry of Defence informed the applicant that no record was found concerning his payments. He was accordingly ordered to serve his military service for a full term. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the decision of the Ministry of Defence annulled. On 27 February 2008 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2007/191E, 2008/352K). On 1 June 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the SMAC (2008/607E, 2008/683K).
The applicant maintained under Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention that compulsory military service constituted a breach of these provisions.
Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4, the applicant stated that he had to perform military service and was thus deprived of his liberty, merely on account of his inability to fulfill a contractual obligation.
60412/08
28/11/2008
Kerim BOYAN
17/12/1968
Ankara
S. Nesimi AKSU
The applicant was a non-commissioned officer in Army. He was seriously injured due to a landmine explosion. In 2007, in consequence of his injuries, he was accepted as a “disabled veteran” and was subjected to early retirement from military service. He brought proceedings before the SMAC and claimed compensation for his damages. In particular, he alleged that his early retirement had resulted in financial loss because retirement pension was lower than his income on active service. On 7 May 2008 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s compensation claims (no. 2008/490E, 2008/538K). On 17 September 2008 it further dismissed his rectification request (2008/801E, 2008/875K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial had been breached as the SMAC’s decisions were in conflict with ordinary administrative courts’ judgments over similar disputes. He further argued that there were conflictions between SMAC’s own decisions regarding similar subjects.
60528/08
02/12/2008
Halef DAĞDELEN
01/04/1984
Hatay
Mustafa ÖZÇELİK
The applicant, a cadet in the military academy, was expelled due to disciplinary problems. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC against that decision. On 6 February 2008 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2007/686E, 2008/152K). On 2 July 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the SMAC (no. 2008/467E, 2008/752K).
The applicant alleged that there was no effective remedy against the decision of the SMAC, as a separate appellate procedure did not exist and the same judges examined both the merits of the case and the rectification request.
The applicant further stated that he had been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
60571/08
01/12/2008
Cihan ÇIRPICI
26/12/1968
Ankara
S. Nesimi AKSU
The applicant was an officer in the Army. In 1994 he was severely injured as a result of an occupational accident. In 2007, the applicant was accepted as a “disabled veteran” and was subjected to early retirement from military service.
He brought proceedings before the SMAC and claimed compensation for his damages caused by his injuries. In particular, he alleged that his early retirement had resulted in financial loss because retirement pension was lower than his income on active service.
On 28 March 2007 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s compensation claims. On 11 July 2007 it accepted his rectification request and resumed on examining his case. On 27 February 2008 the SMAC once again rejected the claims (no. 2007/624E, 2008/310K). Finally, on 4 June 2008, it dismissed his rectification request.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial had been breached as the SMAC’s decisions were in conflict with ordinary administrative courts’ judgments over similar disputes. He further argued that there were conflictions between SMAC’s own decisions regarding similar subjects.
61922/08
25/11/2008
Cemil DEMİRCİOĞLU
10/08/1954
Muğla
Dilek DEMİRCİOĞLU
When performing his compulsory military service in 1974, the applicant allegedly participated in a military operation. Subsequent to a legislative amendment, veteran soldiers who had participated in that military operation were entitled to receive a monthly salary from the Government. The applicant applied to the Army Headquarters to benefit from this provision; however, his application was rejected. The applicant then initiated proceedings before SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 5 June 2008 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case, as it was established that his name was not in the records (no. 2007/1432E, 2008/835K).
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the proceedings before the SMAC had been unfair as his request to call witnesses was rejected.
2539/09
26/12/2008
Suat VARCIN
10/03/1975
Ankara
Hasan Nuri ÜNLÜ
The applicant, a non-commissioned officer in the Army was tried and convicted for malfeasance in office by the Ankara Military Court. The Military Court of Cassation quashed this judgement and remitted the case to the trial court. On 28 November 2007, by the decision of the Ankara Military Court, the applicant was acquitted of the criminal charges against him. In 2006, while the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending, he applied to the General Command of the Gendarmerie to sit for the military officer test. This request was refused on the ground that the applicant did not have the necessary conditions to take the test since there was a criminal conviction against him. He filed an annulment action against the refusal decision with the SMAC. On 27 March 2008 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s action (no. 2007/477E, 2008/556K). On 18 September 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected by the same court (no. 2008/800E, 2008/1045K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his rectification request was examined by the same division of the SMAC which had already decided on the merits of the case.
Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant stated that by basing its decision on the criminal proceedings against him, the Supreme Military Administrative Court had violated his right to be presumed innocent, as he had been acquitted of the charges against him
14828/09
17/02/2009
Musa ÖZTÜRK
15/06/1978
Erzurum
Cavit ÇALIŞ
After having been injured on his left leg accidentally by another sergeant, the applicant, also a sergeant in the Armed Forces, was declared medically unfit to serve and was discharged. He subsequently applied to the Social Security Institution (“Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu”, “SGK”), claiming special service disability pension. Upon the SGK’s tacit refusal, he brought an action before the SMAC, requesting the annulment of the SGK’s decision denying him to grant disability pension. During the proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the SMAC delivered his opinion on the merits of the case. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. On 1 May 2008 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no.2007/782E, 2008/724K). On 9 October 2008 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s rectification request (no. 2008/825E, 2008/1100K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 §1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to him in the proceedings before the SMAC violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing.
23582/09
14/04/2009
Ertan ŞAKACI
20/12/1963
Ankara
Aytekin EROL
In 2006 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, a lieutenant-colonel in the army. Subsequently, on 19 October 2007 he was dismissed. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of the dismissal decision. On 12 November 2008 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2007/1076E, 2008/989K). On 27 January 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected by the same court (no. 2009/198E, 2009/68K). This decision was served on the applicant on 5 February 2009.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had no right to file an appeal against the decision of the SMAC and that the SMAC had rendered its decision before awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him
34861/09
18/06/2009
Nesil GÜNGÖR
01/01/1984
Adana
Abdurrahman ŞAHİN
On December 2005, while performing his compulsory military service in Hakkari, the applicant attempted to commit suicide and, as a result became disabled. On 7 January 2008 he filed a claim for compensation with the SMAC. On 28 January 2009 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (2008/71E, 2009/114K). On 22 April 2009 the SMAC further dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification (no. 2009/444E, 2009/459K).
The applicant alleged that there was no effective remedy against the decision of the Supreme Military Administrative Court as there was no separate appellate procedure.
The applicant also complained that the Supreme Military Administrative Court rendered its decisions without collecting necessary evidence and hearing from all of the witnesses
35029/09
16/06/2009
Mehmet Emin ÇOBAN
01/01/1980
Adıyaman
On 30 May 2007 the applicant’s work contract was terminated and he was discharged from the army on the ground that he had failed the training course. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 4 November 2008 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2007/852E, 2008/925K).
On 10 March 2009 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (no. 2008/1225E, 2009/251K).
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the termination of his work contract deprived him of his financial rights and thus has breached his right to property
45035/09
14/08/2009
Erol KURTUL
07/04/1969
Hatay
Murat GÜRSES
The applicant, a specialist sergeant, was discharged from the army on the ground that he was not medically fit for military service. Subsequently, he applied to the social security found to benefit from retirement pensions. On 18 June 2007 his application was rejected. On 29 August 2007 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the decision of the social security fund annulled. On 15 January 2009 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (no. 2008/237E, 2009/73K). Some documents used as a basis for this decision were classified as secret and were not disclosed to the applicant in the course of proceedings. On 16 April 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was further dismissed by the same court (no. 2009/515E, 2009/426K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he was unable to have access to the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence during the proceedings. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the SMAC had failed to collect necessary evidence in his favour.
Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that the difference of treatment between different ranks in case of medical problems constituted an unjustified discrimination.
49803/09
24/08/2009
Cemal AYDIN
03/07/1972
Ordu
Süleyman DOĞRUER
The applicant, a sergeant was dismissed from the Army. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 28 April 2009 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2008/873E, 2009/479K). On 14 July 2009 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (no. 2009/799E, 2009/751K).
The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that there was no appeal court to review the decisions of the SMAC and complained about the outcome of the proceedings.
51073/09
07/09/2009
Selami YAŞAR
01/01/1984
Diyarbakır
Mehmet YAŞAR
On 25 November 2006 the applicant joined the army to perform his compulsory military service. Suffering from physiological problems, the applicant received medical treatment in a military hospital. On 27 June 2007 Diyarbakır Military Hospital drew up a medical report and stated that the applicant was medically unfit for military service due to his mental illness. Subsequent to this report, the applicant was discharged from the army. Subsequently, the applicant filed a compensation case with the SMAC. On 18 March 2009, taking into account the public prosecutor’s written opinion, the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (no. 2008/960E, 2009/327K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion.
56094/09
05/10/2009
Gökhan SANCI
28/06/1974
Amasya
Cavit ÇALIŞ
On 19 September 2007 criminal proceedings for forgery were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army. When the application was introduced, these proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. On 2 May 2008 the applicant was dismissed from the Army for disciplinary reasons. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 27 January 2009 the SMAC dismissed his case (2008/587E., 2009/109K.). On 21 April 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (2009/449E., 2009/443K.) and the decision was served to him on 4 May 2009.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access the classified documents during the proceedings.
14228/10
12/02/2010
Ali Can SOYLU
13/08/1985
Niğde
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant is a former military student who was expelled from the military academy on medical grounds. Following his expulsion, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC, requesting pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation. During the appeal proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the SMAC delivered his opinion on the merits of the case. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. On 21 October 2009 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2008/385E, 2009/1115K). On 23 December 2009 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected (no. 2009/1376E, 2009/1354K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
14716/10
05/03/2010
Serbay YIĞİT
13/11/1983
SAMSUN
Cavit ÇALIŞ
When serving as a non-commissioned officer in the army in 2006, a criminal case was initiated against the applicant. Subsequently on 13 April 2009 he was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons. On 22 April 2009 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 8 December 2009 the SMAC dismissed his case (no. 2009/497E, 2009/1156K). Some documents used as a basis for this decision were classified as secret and were not disclosed to the applicant in the course of proceedings. On 26 January 2010 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the same court (no. 2010/125E, 2010/76K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he was unable to have access to the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence
18141/10
15/03/2010
Kamile Emel DİNAR
02/02/1958
İzmir
Selime Esen DİNAR
01/01/1983
İzmir
Sezai AYDIN
The applicants’ relative E.D. died during his military service. Seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, the applicants initiated proceedings before the SMAC. The expert reports evaluated the applicants’ loss higher than their initial claim. On 1 April 2009 the SMAC awarded the applicants their initial claim in full (No. 2005/754E, 2009/371K). On 16 September 2009 the SMAC rejected the rectification request (No. 2009/655E, 2009/905K). On 1 October 2009 the final decision was served on the applicants.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about their inability to have their initial claim revised.
30281/10
10/05/2010
Fatıh GÖKGÖZ
08/01/1965
Balıkesir
Ahmet BİLGİN
The applicant, a retired sergeant major, applied to the military administration to obtain a firearm certificate. His request was rejected.
He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 14 January 2010 the SMAC dismissed his case. (No. 2009/609E, 2010/11K). On 8 April 2010 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request. (No. 2010/624E, 2010/435K). On 28 April 2010 the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings.
36606/10
10/05/2010
Ahmet Yiğit KUTLU
05/01/1988
Ankara
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, a cadet in the naval academy, was expelled due failure in his exams. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision.
On 28 October 2009, the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2008/819E, 2009/1131K)
On 3 February 2010, the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2010/147E, 2010/140K). On 15 February 2010, the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion and his inability to access certain classified documents during the proceedings.
41097/10
18/06/2010
Sezgin AKSOY
20/01/1986
Bursa
Abdurrahman ŞAHİN
The applicant was injured during his military service. He initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 30 September 2009 the SMAC dismissed the case (2009/262E., 2009/1018K.). On 17 March 2010 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected (No.2010/298E, 2010/328K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the expert report, which had constituted the basis of the domestic court decision, was not communicated to him.
41439/10
09/06/2010
Ali SEVİMLİ
25/02/1981
Osmaniye
Orhan ÇELEN
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for smuggling and membership of an illegal organisation. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. On 11 February 2009 the applicant was dismissed from for disciplinary reasons. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 26 January 2010 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2009/395E., 2010/242K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 11 May 2010 (2010/491E., 2010/503K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion and alleged lack of access to classified documents.
53178/10
03/07/2010
Sadık ÇALKA
02/12/1973
Bolu
Adem DEMİR
When serving as a specialist sergeant in the Turkish Army in 2009, a criminal case was initiated against the applicant. Subsequently, on 15 April 2009, he was dismissed from the army due to disciplinary misconduct.
On 13 May 2009 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 9 March 2010 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (no. 2009/564E, 2010/259K).
On 25 May 2010 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (no. 2010/570E, 2010/577K).
The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that his rectification request had been examined by the same division of the SMAC which had already decided on the merits of the case.
Finally, relying Article 6 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant contended that, in the course of disciplinary proceedings against him, he had not had adequate time and facilities to defend himself
65594/10
20/10/2010
Mecit ASLAN
10/04/1981
Muğla
Göktan YOLCU
When serving as a specialist sergeant in the Army in 2009, a criminal case was initiated against the applicant. Subsequently, on 14 August 2009, he was dismissed on account of disciplinary grounds. On 25 September 2009 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 18 May 2010 the SMAC rejected the applicant’s case (no. 2009/969E, 2010/568K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his dismissal from the army before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against him violated his right to be presumed innocent
3845/11
26/11/2010
Fahrettin KABADAYI
12/08/1985
Şanlıurfa
Yılmaz KANBALI
The applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 24 February 2010 the case was dismissed by the SMAC due to prescription of the statutory time-limit (no. 2010/225E, 2010/253K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 29 September 2010 (no. 2010/1024E, 2010/1011K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings and alleged that the SMAC had wrongly evaluated the statutory time-limit.
41563/11
22/06/2011
İbrahim BAY
20/04/1986
Istanbul
Recep SELÇUK
During his compulsory military service in 2010, the applicant was injured. On 13 August 2010 he brought compensation proceedings before the SMAC.
On 15 December 2010 the SMAC rejected his case (No. 2010/986E, 2010/1343K). On 9 March 2011 the SMAC further dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification (No. 2011/383E, 2011/301K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the defence submissions of the Ministry of Defence.
43569/11
06/07/2011
İskender TAYHAN
02/02/1973
Bursa
Orhan ÇELEN
The applicant, a member of the Armed Forces, was dismissed for disciplinary reasons and immoral conduct. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC requesting the annulment of his dismissal. During the proceedings, on 21 September 2010, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the SMAC delivered his opinion on the merits of the case. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. On 23 November 2010 the SMAC dismissed the case (no.2010/266E, 2010/1190K). Subsequently, on 1 March 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected (no. 2011/445E, 2011/462K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion.
49288/11
16/05/2011
İsmail UYAR
11/07/1972
Konya
Ahmet BİLGİN
The applicant, a sergeant, was dismissed from his post as he had been declared unfit for service by a medical report dated 31 July 2008. The applicant applied to the Social Security Institute, asking to benefit from disabled veteran provisions. His request was rejected. On 15 March 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 14 October 2010 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/759E, 2010/1390K). On 3 March 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (No. 2010/2229E, 2011/946K). On 21 March 2011 the final decision was notified to the applicant.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion.
49318/11
16/05/2011
Muhittin MISIRLI
20/08/1980
Istanbul
Ahmet BİLGİN
During his compulsory military service, the applicant was declared unfit for military service. On the same date, he was discharged. The applicant applied to the Social Security Institute, asking to benefit from disabled veteran provisions. On 24 June 2010 his request was rejected. On 12 August 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 23 December 2010 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/2208E, 2010/1835K). On 17 March 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected (No. 2011/823E, 2011/1049K). On 18 April 2011, the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion and his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
51858/11
30/06/2011
Yaşar KARAL
01/01/1969
Ankara
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, a sergeant major, was assigned to another military unit in Istanbul although he had requested to be assigned to Ankara. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 20 October 2010 the SMAC rejected his case (No. 2010/726E, 2010/1122K). On 1 February 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was also dismissed (No. 2011/224E, 2011/246K). On 10 February 2011, the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
55538/11
15/08/2011
Medet ZOR
23/05/1980
Istanbul
The applicant, a civil officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him. On 30 December 2010 the court dismissed his case (No. 2010/2201E, 2010/1868K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 7 April 2011 (No. 2011/914E, 2011/1156K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinions and alleged lack of access to classified documents.
57285/11
16/08/2011
Cemil Eren KAYATAŞ
06/04/1988
İzmir
The applicant, a cadet in the air force academy, was expelled due to the disciplinary reasons. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 15 December 2010 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/422E, 2010/1352K). On 16 March 2011 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2011/425E, 2011/346K). On 29 March 2011 the final decision was notified on him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
66364/11
23/09/2011
Soner BABACAN
02/01/1977
Ankara
The applicant, a military officer in the Army, was injured in a military exercise in 2005. On 2 June 2009 he brought compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the SMAC. On 19 January 2011 the SMAC rejected his case (No. 2009/708E, 2011/142K). On 13 April 2011 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request. The final decision was notified on him on 26 April 2011.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinions and alleged lack of access to classified documents.
78848/11
14/11/2011
Hakan İRK
21/09/1979
Istanbul
Adem DEMİR
The applicant, a sergeant in the Army, was appointed to another military unit in 2009. The administrative proceedings he brought against that decision ended up in his favour and the impugned decision was annulled. However, before the execution of this decision, in 2010 he was assigned to another military unit rather than his former military unit. Once again, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC with a view to annulment of this decision and to obtain non-pecuniary compensation. On 23 March 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/659E, 2011/903K). On 12 July 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/1226E, 2011/1279K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
4375/12
13/01/2012
Mehmet ÇOT
30/07/1978
Adana
Mehmet Şener GÜL
The applicant, a lieutenant in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary reasons. He initiated proceedings before the SMAC with a view to annulment of that decision and to obtain his lost personal and pecuniary rights. On 22 March 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2010/721E, 2011/866K). On 05 July 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/1186E, 2011/1260K). The final decision was notified to the applicant on 18 July 2011.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
4514/12
04/01/2012
Uğur ÇATAK
27/01/1985
İzmir
Çetin BİNGÖLBALI
The applicant, a cadet, was expelled from military academy following a secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence into him and his family. The case he initiated before the SMAC to have the annulment of the expulsion decision was dismissed on 15 December 2004 (No. 2005/141E, 2005/164K). On 18 January 2005 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an application with the ECHR. On 6 October 2009 the Court found a violation of Article 6/1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s lack of access to the classified documents submitted to the SMAC. Furthermore, the Court declared the application inadmissible on account of being manifestly ill-founded in respect of complaints concerning independency and impartiality of the SMAC and alleged violation of presumption of innocence and failure of the Ministry of Defence to inform charges against him and to state what means of redress against its decision were available. Following the judgment of the ECHR, his request for the reopening of the proceedings was accepted by the SMAC. On 2 March 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2010/1196E, 2011/281K). On 13 July 2011 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request. The final decision was notified on him on 4 August 2011.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings
4986/12
30/11/2011
Mehmet MÜNEVVER
01/10/1989
Kayseri
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, a cadet, was expelled from military academy due to non-compliance with the conditions for admission. On 20 August 2010 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC against the Ministry of Defence. During the proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Military Administrative Court delivered his opinion on the merits of the case. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. On 23 March 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2010/1294E, 2011/1402K). On 22 June 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected (no. 2011/824E, 2011/863K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings.
9138/12
30/01/2012
Mahmut Uygar ŞANLI
30/04/1981
Diyarbakır
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, a sergeant in the intelligence unit of the Army, was dismissed from this unit on the ground that criminal proceedings were initiated against him for having leaked information during his service. The case he initiated before the SMAC to have this decision annulled was rejected on 21 July 2011 (No. 2010/2025E, 2011/1781K). On 24 November 2011 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2011/2156E, 2011/2373K). The final decision was notified on him on 8 December 2011.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings
11973/12
29/12/2011
Murat AKGÜN
12/06/1976
Istanbul
Mehmet Sadık LİMAN
The applicant was a teacher in a military school. His work contract with the Ministry of Defence was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision. On 8 June 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2011/58E, 2011/798K). The applicant’s rectification request was further rejected on 16 November 2011 (No. 2011/1417E, 2011/1377K). On 25 November 2011 the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion and his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
14697/12
17/02/2012
Selim EMLİK
24/03/1969
Kahramanmaraş
Cavit ÇALIŞ
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for having committed forgery of official documents. On 14 October 2010 he was dismissed on the ground that he had committed acts undermining professional values.
On 2 November 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision.
On 31 May 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2010/1442E, 2011/1114K).
On 13 September 2011 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2011/1315E, 2011/1371K). On 26 September 2011 the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor, and his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
24523/12
27/02/2012
Hakan Eşref OĞUZ
15/06/1978
Afyon
The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of a decision regarding his assignment to another military unit. On 12 October 2011 the court dismissed his case (No. 2011/1032E, 2011/1594K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 31 January 2012 (No. 2012/114E, 2012/95K). On 23 February 2012 the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion and alleged lack of access to classified documents.
24600/12
19/03/2012
Asuman KORKMAZ
16/07/1988
Mersin
Adil AKTAY
The applicant, a cadet in the military academy, was expelled due to disciplinary reasons. The proceedings initiated by the applicant before the SMAC to have that decision annulled were dismissed on 13 April 2011 (2010/910E., 2011/525K.) Her rectification request was also rejected on 14 September 2011 (No. 2011/1100E., 2011/998K). The final decision was notified on 28 September 2011.
The applicant complained about her inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
34148/12
30/03/2012
Enver ŞAHİN
17/07/1981
Ankara
Abdurrahman Levent KOÇER
The applicant was an officer in the Army. Upon the rejection of the authorities to renew his work contract, the applicant initiated proceedings to have that decision annulled. The case was dismissed by the SMAC on 14 July 2011 (2010/1029 E., 2011/1182 K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 29 November 2011 (2011/1673E., 2011/1799K.)
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
36024/12
13/04/2012
Fikret YAVUZKURT
19/03/1978
Muğla
Cihan KOÇ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, participated in a written test for a promotion, however he failed. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the results of the test annulled. On 21 April 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2010/483E, 2011/1543K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 13 October 2011 (No. 2011/3634E, 2011/1543K.). This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 27 October 2011.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
37018/12
13/04/2012
Sadık ŞEVİK
08/06/1975
Amasya
Cihan KOÇ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, participated in a written test for a promotion, however he failed. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the results of the test annulled. On 21 April 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2010/484E, 2011/1544K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 8 December 2011 (No. 2011/2589E, 2011/2376K). The final decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 8 December 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
37648/12
13/04/2012
Arif TEKİN
12/11/1981
Mardin
Cihan KOÇ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, participated in a written test for a promotion, however he failed. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the results of the test annulled. On 21 April 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (no. 2010/488E, 2011/1539K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 13 October 2011 (no. 2011/2213E, 2011/2000K). The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 26 October 2011.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
48968/12
30/05/2012
Övgü KAHVECİ
14/07/1982
Malatya
Yüksel ÖZYÜKSEL
The applicant is a civil officer in a Military Hospital. On 16 February 2011 her request to transfer her remaining annual leave days to the following year was rejected by the administration.
On 5 May 2011 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the annulment of that decision.
On 12 October 2011 the SMAC dismissed the case (No. 2011/766E, 2011/1339K).
On 01 February 2012 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2012/90E, 2012/75K). The final decision was notified to her on 10 February 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
50675/12
26/04/2012
Eyüp TEMİZYÜREK
01/05/1964
Adana
Cavit ÇALIŞ
In 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army. On 26 May 2008 he was found guilty as charged however the domestic court decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. On 14 February 2011 he was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary grounds.
On 8 April 2011 the applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled.
On 13 December 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2011/794E, 2011/1940K).
On 27 March 2012 the SMAC further rejected the applicant’s rectification request (No. 2012/402E, 2012/323K). On 9 April 2012 the final decision was notified to him.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access the classified documents during the proceedings.
51317/12
31/05/2012
Alparslan AKTÜRK
05/05/1976
Tatvan
Mehmet YALÇIN
The applicant, a sergeant in a military hospital, initiated proceedings before the SMAC following the refusal of his request to benefit from certain pecuniary rights that were granted to medical personnel by Law no. 5947. On 27 October 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2011/887E, 2011/2295K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 23 February 2012 (No. 2012/459E, 2012/231K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
54785/12
06/07/2012
Faruk FİLİZ
08/05/1973
Bursa
The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC” to have the annulment of a decision regarding his assignment to another military unit. On 18 October 2011 the court dismissed his case (No. 2011/1023E, 2011/1607K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 14 February 2012 (No. 2012/197E, 2012/140K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
57239/12
22/05/2012
Metin GÜMÜŞ
09/09/1968
Afyonkarahisar
Hüseyin Ali ÜSTÜNDAĞ
The applicant, a non-commissioned officer in the Turkish army, was dismissed from his post on 9 April 2010 due to disciplinary problems.
The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled.
On 31 May 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case.
On 29 November 2011 the applicant’s rectification request was also rejected by the same court.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings.
He further stated under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the disciplinary penalties imposed upon him had not been ordered by an independent and impartial tribunal.
61421/12
24/07/2012
Recep ULUTAŞ
15/02/1969
Ankara
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, an officer in the Army was dismissed from his post on account of his disability. The applicant compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 30 November 2011 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2011/400E, 2011/1445K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 14 May 2012 (No.2012/307E, 2012/479K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
61426/12
24/07/2012
Hüda GÜLER
22/01/1979
Balıkesir
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, an officer in the Army was dismissed from his post as he was declared unfit by a medical report. The applicant requested to benefit from disabled veteran provisions. Upon the rejection of his request, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC. On 1 February 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (No. 2011/498E, 2012/120K). .) His rectification request was also rejected on 3 May 2012 (2012/345E., 2012/481K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
61822/12
26/07/2012
Gökhan ABBASOĞULLARI
27/12/1985
Antakya
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. The proceedings he initiated to have that decision annulled were dismissed by the SMAC on 20 March 2012 (No. 2011/1460E., 2012/340K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 6 June 2012 (No. 2012/782E., 2012/709K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
62005/12
24/05/2012
Mehmet KAL
24/07/1968
Antalya
Cihan KOÇ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. The proceedings he initiated to have that decision annulled were dismissed by the SMAC on 14 February 2012 (No. 2011/873E., 2012/151K.) The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 3 May 2012 (No. 2012/588E., 2012/506K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
65464/12
09/08/2012
Hüseyin ÖMÜR
18/07/1988
Ankara
Cavit ÇALIŞ
The applicant, a military school student, was expelled due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. The proceedings initiated by the applicant before the SMAC to have that decision annulled were dismissed on 22 February 2012 (2011/909E., 2012/199K.) The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 30 May 2012 (No. 2012/504E, 2012/582K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
66839/12
12/08/2012
Okan AKPINAR
28/03/1982
Ankara
Cihan KOÇ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have an administrative decision annulled. On 1 December 2011 the SMAC dismissed his case (2011/1290E., 2011/2428K.). On 8 March 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (2012/3E., 2012/321K.) and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 19 March 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
67959/12
17/10/2012
Bayram Güner ÖZGÜN
15/07/1950
Ankara
The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules in 1973. In 2011, a new Law entered into force to reinstate certain military personnel that had been dismissed. The applicant’s request to benefit from the new law was rejected as his situation was not one the circumstances indicated in the said law. On 12 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2011/2680E., 2012/899K.) and the decision was served on the applicant on 4 May 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
76671/12
21/09/2012
Bahadır İBİŞ
10/01/1990
Manisa
Kadir GÜNDOĞAN
The applicant, a military school student, was expelled due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. The proceedings initiated by the applicant before the SMAC to have that decision annulled were dismissed on 15 February 2012 (2011/997E., 2012/163K.) The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 9 May 2012 (2012/419E., 2012/508K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
77090/12
20/09/2012
Cenk ÇELİK
30/04/1975
Muğla
Murat MERGEN
İlknur ARSLAN
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for smuggling. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. On 16 May 2011 he was dismissed on the ground that he had committed acts undermining professional values. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 13 March 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (2011/974E., 2012/227K). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 8 May 2012 (2012/634E., 2012/547K).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
78310/12
02/10/2012
Mehmet KARAKAŞ
01/12/1970
Balıkesir
Recep KÖSE
On 25 June 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, for forgery and fraud. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. On 14 April 2011 he was dismissed on the ground that he had committed acts undermining professional values. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 31 January 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (2011/961E., 2012/111K.). On 27 March 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (2012/404 E., 2012/326 K.) and the decision was served to the applicant’s representative on 6 April 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion and his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings
81797/12
13/11/2012
Turgay ÇUBUK
01/05/1969
Uşak
Recep KÖSE
On 25 June 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the Army, on account of fraud and bribery. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. Subsequently, on 6 April 2011, he was dismissed from the Army due to disciplinary reasons. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have the dismissal decision annulled. On 31 January 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case. (2011/859E., 2012/112K.). On 3 May 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (2012/578E., 2012/507K.) and the decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 15 May 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
750/13
13/11/2012
Zekeriya PİŞMİŞ
28/05/1987
Istanbul
Recep SELÇUK
During his military service, the applicant was injured and became permanently disabled. He initiated compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 21 December 2011 the SMAC partly accepted the applicant’s compensation claims and rejected to the larger part of his request (2010/1079E., 2011/1606K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 9 May 2012 (2012/436E., 2012/501K.) and the decision was served to the applicant’s representative on 23 May 2012.
Without invoking any specific Articles of the Convention, the applicant alleged that as a result of a new law that entered into force while the proceedings were pending, the SMAC ordered him to pay an excessive amount of attorneys’ fee to the defendant party.
1525/13
23/11/2012
Demir Gökçe CANER
01/08/1947
Antalya
The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules in 1972. In 2010, a new Law was enacted in order to reinstate certain military personnel. The applicant’s request to benefit from these provisions was rejected as his situation was not one of the circumstances indicated in the abovementioned Law. The applicant brought an action before the SMAC and requested the annulment of that decision. On 19 April 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (2011/2538E., 2012/1337K.) and the decision was served to the applicant on 21 June 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor
2255/13
06/11/2012
Murat GÜZEL
01/01/1972
Istanbul
Mehmet Şener GÜL
On 15 March 2011 the applicant, a sergeant in the Army, was dismissed due to disciplinary reasons. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 17 January 2012 the SMAC dismissed the case (2011/668E., 2012/25K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 3 May 2012 (2012/579E., 2012/522K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
8195/13
18/12/2012
Nadir KAYA
25/01/1969
Ankara
Hikmet İŞLER
On 11 March 2011 the applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to disciplinary reasons. He then initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 6 March 2012 the SMAC dismissed the applicant’s case (2011/700E., 2012/313K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 6 June 2012 (2012/741 E., 2012/711 K.). The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 25 June 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
10863/13
19/11/2012
Ekrem ÖZTÜRK
05/10/1978
Ankara
Cihan KOÇ
The applicant, an officer in the Army, was dismissed from his post due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. The proceedings he initiated to have that decision annulled were dismissed by the SMAC on 27 March 2012 (2011/924E., 2012/341K.). The applicant’s rectification request was also rejected on 5 June 2012 (2012/802E., 2012/704K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor.
11951/13
05/12/2012
Mustafa TUNCA
23/04/1965
Balikesir
Recep KÖSE
On 25 June 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, an officer in the army, for fraud and bribery. When the application was introduced, criminal proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. Subsequently, on 14 April 2011 he was dismissed from the Army due to disciplinary reasons. The applicant initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 31 January 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (2011/858E., 2012/110K). On 22 May 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (2012/673E., 2012/647K.) and the decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 11 June 2012.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the opinion of public prosecutor and his inability to access classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
20626/13
06/03/2013
Bahadır GÜNGÖRDÜ
06/02/1959
Ankara
The applicant, a cadet in a military university, was expelled due to disciplinary reasons. On 20 April 2011 he applied to the administration, asking to benefit from Law no. 6191 which was enacted on 22 March 2011, in order to reinstate certain military staff. His request was dismissed on 6 May 2011. The proceedings he initiated before the SMAC was further dismissed on 20 September 2012 (2011/2406E., 2012/1891K.).
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings.
8830/14
15/01/2014
Erhan KAPAN
25/06/1980
Ankara
The applicant, a sergeant in the Army, failed in an oral exam for a promotion. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have his exam result annulled. On 11 October 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2012/620E, 2012/2026K). On 11 October 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 12 November 2013.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Conventions about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
26490/14
26/03/2014
Medet ZOR
23/05/1980
Istanbul
The applicant, a former civil officer in the Army, applied to the administration and asked to exchange his position with another civil officer in Istanbul. His request was dismissed. On 4 May 2011 the proceedings he had initiated for the annulment of the impugned decision ended in his favour (No. 2010/893E-2011/664K). Subsequently, the applicant initiated a new set of compensation proceedings before the SMAC. On 22 February 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case (No. 2011/1391E, 2012/239K). On 23 January 2013 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/967E, 2013/57K). On 31 December 2013 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to access the classified documents submitted during the proceedings.
43220/14
23/05/2014
Onur Okay CEYLAN
15/12/1967
Istanbul
Aykanat KAÇMAZ
The applicant, a lieutenant, was dismissed from the Army due to disciplinary reasons in 1998. Following the amendment adopted by Law No. 6191 providing for the restitution of certain social and financial rights to ex-military personnel who were dismissed by decisions which were not subject to any judicial review, the applicant applied to administration asking to benefit from that amendment. After his request had been rejected, he initiated proceedings before the SMAC to have that decision annulled. On 17 May 2012 the SMAC dismissed his case stating that his case could not be regarded within the scope of the amendment since his dismissal had been subject to judicial review on the material date (No. 2011/2474E, 2012/1251K). On 1 November 2012 the SMAC further rejected his rectification request (No. 2012/1672E, 2012/2141K). On 14 April 2014 his individual application to the TCC was declared inadmissible. The final decision was notified to him on 22 April 2014.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy