SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7023/07
Rahmi ÇULHA against Turkey
and 22 other applications
(see appended list)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, 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 twenty-three applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix (“the applicants”).
2. The applicants were represented by Ms F. Yazırhan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 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. At time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicants worked for the Publications Directorate of the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi Müdürlüğü), (hereafter “Employer Institution”), a State-owned entity. The applicants also claimed that they were members of a union at the material time.
5. On an unspecified date in November 2004, the Employer Institution announced that it would be closing down on account of the financial difficulties which it had encountered. Subsequently, a number of employees, including the applicants were made redundant after being paid their monetary entitlements in full, including severance and notice pay.
6. A number of the applicants initiated administrative proceedings seeking to have the Employer Institution’s decision set aside. The Ankara Administrative Court found that the impugned decision had not been delivered by a competent authority and therefore was not in accordance with domestic law. No information was provided with respect to the contents of the administrative court’s decision and whether it became final.
7. On 11 November 2004 the applicants initiated individual reinstatement proceedings in the Ankara Labour Court, claiming that their dismissal had been unjustified. They therefore requested the labour court to find that the termination of their employment contracts had been null and void; to be reinstated to work or to be paid monetary compensation in the event that they were not reinstated. In addition to such compensation, they also requested salary and other benefits to be paid to them up to a maximum of four months for the period during which they remained unemployed until the proceedings became final.
8. During the proceedings, the applicants argued that the closure of the Employer Institution had not been in accordance with domestic law and that as a result it could not constitute a valid reason for the collective termination of their contracts. Furthermore, the applicants contended that the Employer Institution had been taken over by another State-owned institution and had not, in fact been closed down.
9. In the domestic proceedings concerning the cases relating to applications nos. 7062/07, 7074/07, 7429/07, 7500/07, 7531/07, the Ankara Labour Court dismissed the applicants’ cases, holding that the fact that the Employer Institution had ceased to operate as of 24 November 2004 constituted legitimate grounds to justify the applicants’ claims. On appeal from the applicants, the 9th division of the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the first-instance court on 29 May and 19 June 2006, respectively, by endorsing the reasoning of the lower court. No further appeal was possible against the decision of the Court of Cassation and therefore the judgments dismissing the applicants’ claims became final.
10. In the domestic proceedings concerning the remaining applicants, the Ankara Labour Court allowed the applicants’ claim and found that their employer’s decision to close down should have been delivered by the Board of Directors, rather than the President of the institution. Having considered the findings of expert reports, the court did not give credence to the defendant party’s arguments that the applicants’ dismissals had been unavoidable because of the financial difficulties with which the institution had been faced. In this connection, the court noted that the employer was a State-owned non-profit-making institution. Consequently, it ordered that the applicants be reinstated at work, holding that their dismissals had not been justified.
11. Following an appeal by the Employer Institution, on various dates between 30 May 2005 and 5 December 2005, the ninth division of the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court’s decisions which had ordered that the applicants be reinstated at work. The Court of Cassation found that the trial court had not adequately considered whether the Employer Institution had actually been closed down, but solely relied on the fact that the decision to close down had been taken by an authority which was not competent to take such a decision. Subsequently, it remitted the cases back.
12. In the majority of the cases of the applicants, the Ankara Labour Court reconsidered the cases and established, in the light of the available evidence, that the Employer Institution had ceased to operate on 24 November 2004 and that reference to its legal personality had been removed from the social‑security and taxation records. The court dismissed the applicants’ claim that the Employer Institution had been taken over by another State‑owned entity, as the Ministry of Education had merely leased the premises and assets of the Employer Institution after it had closed down on 22 March 2005. Against that background, the Ankara Labour Court found that the decision to close down was genuine and that the applicants’ dismissals had been reasonable in the circumstances. The ninth division of the Court of Cassation upheld those judgments on various dates between January and September 2006.
13. In the meantime, in the cases relating to the applications nos. 7049/07, 7420/07, 7558/07 and 15688/07 the domestic proceedings developed in a slightly different way. Following the Court of Cassation’s decisions to quash and remit the cases to the Ankara Labour Court, the first-instance court again held that the dismissals had not been justified as the decision to close down the Employer Institution had been set aside by an administrative court (see paragraph 6 above) and that the Employer Institution had failed to demonstrate any other compelling reason justifying the termination of the claimants’ employment contracts. In view of those considerations, the Ankara Labour Court ordered the applicants’ reinstatement at work.
14. On appeal from the Employer Institution, the ninth division of the Court of Cassation quashed the Ankara Labour Court’s judgments, holding that the closure of the Employer Institution had been executed and that the relevant administrative court’s stay of execution decision did not change the fact that the Employer Institution had been effectively closed. It therefore annulled the Ankara Labour Court’s judgments in respect of those four applicants, without remitting the cases to the latter for reconsideration.
15. By contrast, the applicants have submitted, in their case files, four previous decisions of the ninth division of the Court of Cassation delivered on 13 April 2005, in which the Ankara Labour Court’s judgments to have the applicants’ colleagues’ reinstated at work were upheld (2005/5943 E.‑13134 K.; 2005/5945 E.-13136 K.; 2005/10327 E.-13141 K; 2005/10329 E.-13143 K.). In those judgments, the Ankara Labour Court held that the Employer Institution had been created pursuant to a regulation in order to publish works concerning research on Ataturk’s principles and revolutions, Turkish history, culture and language and that the sole reference to a recent law which made it necessary for state-owned institutions to seek profit did not constitute sufficient grounds to cease its activities in consideration of the fact that the said regulation was still in force. It therefore held that the closure of the Employer Institution had been taken without a careful assessment.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
16. Article 18 of the Labour Code in so far as relevant reads:
“In workplaces where at least thirty employees are employed, the employer shall give a valid reason that is related to the capacity or conduct of the employee or the operational requirements of the establishment, service or the workplace, in the termination of an indefinite employment contract for employees who have six or more months of seniority.”
17. Article 20 of the Labour Code in so far as relevant reads:
“... An employee whose contract of employment has been terminated unjustly may seek reinstatement before a labour court within one month of the notice of termination.
...
The claim shall be finalised within two months on the basis of the accelerated judgment procedure. In a case of appeal, the Court of Cassation shall render its decision within one month. That decision shall be final.”
18. Article 21 of the Labour Code in so far as relevant reads:
“Where a court or an arbitrator rules that the termination of an employment contract was unjustified on account of the absence or the validity of reasons given, the employer shall reinstate the employee to work within one month [at the request of the employee]. In cases where the employee’s request to be reinstated is refused by the employer, the latter must pay compensation to the employee amounting to no less than four months’ wages and not more than his eight months’ wages.
...
The employee shall also be compensated up to a maximum of four months’ total of his wages and other entitlements for the time spent without work until the finalisation of the court’s judgment [...]
...
To be reinstated, the employee must make a request with his employer within ten working days of the date on which the final court decision was communicated to him. If the employee does not apply within the said period of time, termination shall be deemed valid, in which case the employer shall be held liable only for the legal consequences of that termination [...]”
19. Article 29 of the Labour Code in so far as relevant reads:
“The intention to collectively dismiss employees due to economic, technological, structural and similar operational requirements shall be notified in writing at least thirty days in advance to the relevant trade union representatives, respective regional directorate and the Turkish Employment Agency.
...
Such notification should include information on the reasons for the [intended] collective dismissal, the number and group of employees to be affected and the time period during which the dismissal is intended to take place.
In the negotiations held between the trade union representatives and the employer, possible measures to avoid or minimise dismissals or its negative effects on employees shall be discussed. A document shall be prepared to indicate that such negotiations have taken place.
...
In cases where the workplace is entirely closed and its operations are ceased permanently, the employer is only required to announce its closure at the workplace and notify its closure thirty days in advance to the respective regional directorate and the Turkish Employment Agency.
...”
COMPLAINTS
20. Without relying on any provision of the Convention, the applicants alleged that by delivering conflicting judgments concerning identical issues, the Court of Cassation had breached the principle of legal certainty. They also maintained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and that in deciding on their case, the domestic courts had not complied with the statutory time-limits provided for in Article 20 of the Labour Code.
21. The applicants also complained about the outcome of the proceedings and alleged that they had been dismissed unfairly on account of their membership of a union, which also caused them financial loss.
THE LAW
22. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
23. The Court considers that the above complaints relating to the proceedings before the labor court are most appropriately examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time... by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Preliminary objection of the Government
24. The Government argued that the applications nos. 7049/07, 7062/07, 7074/07, 7094/07, 7101/07, 7408/07, 7429/07, 7500/07, 7531/07, 7558/07, 15716/07, 15791/07 had been introduced outside the six-months’ rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In that connection, they submitted that the six-month time-limit in the aforementioned applications had started to run from the dates indicated in the appendix, namely the dates on which the Court of Cassation had pronounced its judgment. They submitted, alternatively, that the date on which the Court of Cassation deposited its judgment with the registry of the first-instance court should be taken as the start date of the six-month time‑limit and that therefore applications nos. 7049/07, 7558/07, 15791/07 should be declared inadmissible in so far as they had been introduced out of time.
25. The applicants contested the Government’s submissions, arguing, inter alia, that Article 21 of the Labour Code specifically provided for the service of final judgments in reinstatement proceedings so that in the event of a judgment calling for the claimant’s reinstatement to work, the ten-day limitation period for the claimant to request his or her reinstatement could be objectively determined.
26. The Court considers, regardless of whether some of the applicants have respected the six-month rule, that it need not resolve this issue as the applications are, in any event, inadmissible for the following reasons (see, inter alia, Hakan Duman v. Turkey, no. 28439/03, § 32, 23 March 2010; K.L. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 25141/16, § 26, 17 October 2017; and, mutatis mutandis, Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, § 128, 14 May 2013).
B. Fairness of the proceedings
27. The applicants complained of the unfairness of the impugned proceedings and submitted that the Court of Cassation had delivered conflicting decisions in identical cases.
28. The Government submitted that there had not been profound and long standing differences in the Court of Cassation’s approach to the material dispute before it so as to breach the principle of legal certainty. Although the Court of Cassation had upheld some four employees’ reinstatement to work in its earlier judgments, delivered on 13 April 2005, it had changed its approach in the subsequent cases following the discovery of an element that had not been considered before, namely the Employer Institution’s de facto and de jure closure. Once the trial courts established that the Employer Institution had ceased to operate as of 24 November 2004, the Court of Cassation held that procedural irregularities in taking the decision to close down the institution would not change the outcome.
29. The Court reiterates at the outset that the right to a fair trial must be interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which declares the rule of law to be part of the common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty. Conflicting decisions in similar cases heard in the same court which, in addition, is the court of last resort in the matter, may, in the absence of a mechanism which ensures consistency, breach that principle and thereby undermine public confidence in the judiciary, such confidence being one of the essential components of a State based on the rule of law (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 55‑57, 20 October 2011, and Petreska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16912/08, § 28, 21 July 2016).
30. However, the possibility of conflicting court decisions is an inherent trait of any judicial system which is based on a network of trial and appeal courts with authority over the area of their territorial jurisdiction. Such divergences may also arise within the same court. That, in itself, cannot be considered contrary to the Convention. The criteria that guide the Court’s assessment of the conditions in which conflicting judgments are in breach of the fair trial requirement, enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, consist in establishing whether profound and long‑standing differences exist in the case-law of the domestic courts, whether the domestic law provides for a mechanism for overcoming these inconsistencies, whether that mechanism has been applied and, if appropriate, to what effect (see, inter alia, Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, §§ 49-50, 2 July 2009; Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin, cited above, § 53; and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
31. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the impugned proceedings concerned the applicants’ dismissals on the basis of the closure of the Employer Institution. All of the applicants worked for the same employer and had been collectively dismissed on the same grounds, namely the decision to close down the Employer Institution on account of financial difficulties. The Court of Cassation, ruling as a last instance in those proceedings, upheld the applicants’ dismissal on the basis of the same reasoning, namely that the de facto closure of the Employer Institution constituted valid grounds for dismissal. It is true that the Court of Cassation in its earliest decisions delivered on 13 April 2005 upheld the reinstatement of four employees to work by endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court which had held that the Employer Institution’s closure of its operations on the basis of a newly enacted requirement for state-owned entities to seek profit had not been justified. Although the fact that the Employer Institution had been closed was available for consideration on the date the Court of Cassation conducted its appeal review in those other cases, the fact of this matter being overlooked appears to be an isolated occurrence and as such not giving rise to a state of legal uncertainty. In fact, shortly after that date, the Court of Cassation took into account of the Employer Institution’s closure and remained consistent in its approach in holding those grounds to be valid for dismissal. The Court recalls in that connection that achieving consistency of the law may take time, and periods of conflicting case-law may therefore be tolerated without undermining legal certainty (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin, cited above, § 83).
32. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there were “profound and long‑standing differences” in the relevant case-law of the Court of Cassation. Considering this aspect, the Court finds no reason to further examine whether the domestic law contained provisions for overcoming those inconsistencies, whether those provisions were applied and to what effect.
33. The Court further notes that the applicants in the present case had the benefit of adversarial proceedings, in which they were able to adduce evidence as they deemed necessary and have their arguments properly examined by the courts. At the same time, the courts’ conclusions and their interpretation of the relevant law cannot be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
34. Having regard to all the above-mentioned considerations, the Court considers that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and should be dismissed as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. The length of the proceedings
35. The applicants complained that the length of the domestic proceedings had been excessive and contravened the mandatory provision of Article 20 of the Labour Code which requires reinstatement proceedings to be completed within three months.
36. The Government contested the applicants’ arguments.
37. The Court observes, at the outset, that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey since the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court observes that in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), it declared a new application inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy. In so doing, the Court in particular considered that this new remedy was, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings.
38. The Court further points out that, in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless pursue the examination of such applications under the normal procedure in cases which had already been communicated to the Government prior to the entry into force of the new remedy. It further notes that in the present case the Government did not raise an objection in respect of the new domestic remedy. In view of the above, the Court decides to pursue the examination of the present application (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey, no. 24267/07, §§ 34‑36, 4 June 2013).
39. The Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed similar complaints in previous cases against Turkey concerning the length of labour proceedings (see Çalık v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3675/07, 31 August 2010; Dildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42927/10 and 14 other applications, §§ 43-45, 12 March 2013; Yiğit v. Turkey (dec.), no. 24032/09 and 21 other applications, §§ 43-45, 16 December 2014; and Akça v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17997/10, 22 November 2016). It observes that the proceedings in the present application lasted for periods ranging from fourteen to twenty-three months, and during those periods the cases were examined at two levels of jurisdiction and decisions ranging from two to four were delivered in each case. The Court therefore considers that the periods in question do not exceed the reasonable-time requirement guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the domestic courts do not appear to have failed to act with the required diligence when determining the applicant’s claims.
This part of the applications is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
D. Other complaints
40. Referring to their membership of a union at the material time, the applicants alleged that their right to freedom of assembly was violated by unfair dismissals.
41. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
42. It follows that this part of the applications is also manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 7 June 2018.
Hasan BakırcıPaul Lemmens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Introduction date of the domestic proceedings
Date(s) of the Ankara Labour Court’s decision(s)
Date(s) of decision(s) of the Court of Cassation
Date(s) on which the final decision of the Court of Cassation were deposited with the court’s registry
Total length of proceedings
7023/07
26/01/2007
Rahmi ÇULHA
01/04/1964
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 12/04/2005
2- 27/06/2006
1- 30/05/2005 decision to quash
2- 18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/21652 E. - 2006/23025 K.)
26/10/2006
1 year and 10 months
7036/07
26/01/2007
Hamza DÜZGÖREN
01/01/1968
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 12/04/2005
2- 27/06/2006
1- 30/05/2005 decision to quash
2- 18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/21657 E. - 2006/23030 K.)
26/10/2006
1 year and 10 months
7042/07
26/01/2007
Akın DEMİR
06/07/1970
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 12/04/2005
2- 27/06/2006
1-30/05/2005 decision to quash.
2-18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/21649E.-23022K.)
26/10/2006
1 year and 10 months
7049/07
26/01/2007
Zülfikar SARIÇAM
01/02/1964
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 14/06/2005
2- 16/02/2006
1- 29/09/2005 decision to quash
2-27/04/2006 decision to quash and to annul the first instance court’s judgment (2006/8617 E. – 2006/11726 K.)
27/06/2006
1 year and 5 months
7062/07
26/01/2007
Mehmet Ali AYDOĞDU
03/06/1964
Ankara
10/12/2004
02/03/2006
29/05/2006 decision to uphold (2006/12189 E. – 2006/15471 K.)
02/08/2006
1 year and 6 months
7074/07
26/01/2007
Elvan KARAAĞAÇ
01/01/1964
Ankara
11/11/2004
27/04/2006
19/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/16536 E. – 2006/17481 K.)
28/07/2006
1 year and 7 months
7094/07
26/01/2007
Murat ÖZCAN
24/12/1967
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 09/06/2005
2- 06/04/2006
1-13/09/2005 decision to quash
2- 07/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/12452 E. - 2006/16443 K.)
26/07/2006
1 year and 7 months
7101/07
26/01/2007
Şerafettin TUNÇER
13/04/1968
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 09/06/2005
2-06/04/2006
1- 13/09/2005 decision to quash
2- 07/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/12451 E. - 2006/16442 K.)
26/07/2006
1 year and 7 months
7106/07
26/01/2007
Hasan ERSOY
02/10/1970
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 12/04/2005
2- 27/06/2006
1- 30/05/2005 decision to quash
2- 18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/2151 E. - 2006/23024 K.)
26/10/2006
1 year and 10 months
7408/07
22/01/2007
Celal BOLAT
01/05/1965
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 09/06/2005
2- 06/04/2006
1- 13/09/2005 decision to quash
2- 07/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/12456 E. - 2006/16447 K.)
26/07/2006
1 year and 7 months
7420/07
22/01/2007
Ali KAYA
06/07/1969
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 17/03/2005
2- 02/05/2006
1- 08/06/2005 decision to quash
2- 02/10/2006 decision to quash and to annul the first instance court’s judgment (2006/23650 E,
0. - 2006/25384 K.)
17/11/2006
1 year and 11 months
7429/07
22/01/2007
Yılmaz ÖZBEK
10/12/1968
Ankara
11/11/2004
27/04/2006
19/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/16531 E. – 2006/17476 K.)
28/07/2006
1 year 7 months
7434/07
22/01/2007
Necati ARICIOĞLU
29/09/1954
Ankara
10/11/2004
1- 20/07/2005
2- 24/05/2006
1- 19/10/2005 decision to quash
2- 02/10/2006 decision to quash (2006/17839 E. - 2006/25427 K.)
14/11/2006
1 year and 11 months
7442/07
22/01/2007
Muharrem ÖZDEMİR
02/11/1967
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 17/03/2005
2- 02/05/2006
1- 08/06/2005 decision to quash
2- 02/10/2006 decision to quash (2006/23649 E. - 2006/25383 K.)
17/11/2006
1 year and 11 months
7500/07
22/01/2007
Hava BASTAK
01/03/1958
Ankara
11/11/2004
27/04/2006
19/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/16534 E.-2006/17479K.)
28/07/2006
1 year and 7 months
7508/07
22/01/2007
Ali İhsan DEMİRTAŞ
23/07/1966
Ankara
11/11/2004
1-27/10/2005
2-13/06/2006
1-05/12/2005 decision to quash
2-18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/25300 E.-2006/23502 K.)
06/11/2006
1 year and 10 months
7516/07
22/01/2007
Muharrem ARSLAN
10/10/1969
Ankara
11/11/2004
1- 27/10/2005
2-13/06/2006
1-05/12/2005 decision to quash
2- 18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/225301 E. - 2006/23503 K.)
06/11/2006
1 year and 10 months
7531/07
22/01/2007
Mehmet AKTAŞ
05/11/1963
Ankara
11/11/2004
27/04/2006
19/06/2006 decision to uphold (2006/16533 E.-2006/17478 K.)
28/07/2006
1 year and 7 months
7554/07
22/01/2007
Hasan KÖKSAL
01/03/1965
Ankara
11/11/2004
1-27/10/2005
2-13/06/2006
1-05/12/2005 decision to quash
2-18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/25306 E.-2006/23508 K.)
06/11/2006
1 year and 10 months
7558/07
22/01/2007
Yılmaz ÖZÇELİK
30/10/1965
Ankara
11/11/2004
1-14/06/2005
2-16/02/2006
1-29/09/2009 decision to quash
2- 27/04/2006 decision to quash and to annul the first instance court’s judgment (2006/8622 E.-2006/11731 K.)
27/06/2006
1 year and 5 months
15688/07
29/03/2007
Erol KARAYEL
16/05/1964
Ankara
11/11/2004
1-17/03/2005
2-02/05/2006
1-08/06/2005 decision to quash
2-02/10/2006 decision to quash and to annul the first instance court’s judgment (2006/23647 E.-2006/25381 K.)
17/11/2006
1 year and 11 months
15716/07
29/03/2007
Sacit DİKTEPE
16/09/1960
Ankara
11/11/2004
1-12/04/2005
2-27/06/2006
1-30/05/2005 decision to quash
2-18/09/2006 decision to uphold (2006/21653 E.-2006/23026 K.)
26/10/2006
1 year and 10 months
15791/07
29/03/2007
Murat ÇİĞDEM
10/08/1967
Ankara
11/11/2004
1-31/05/2005
2-24/11/2005
1-13/07/2005 decision to quash
2-24/01/2006 decision to uphold (2005/38109 E.-2006/1021 K.)
27/02/2006
1 year and 2 months
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy