Published on 3 August 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 19668/19
Samet EREK
against Türkiye
lodged on 22 March 2019
communicated on 30 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns demotion and transfer of the applicant on account of his telephone contacts with persons allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure).
The applicant is the former Director of Administrative Affairs (il yazı işleri müdürü) at the Governor’s Office of Yalova province.
On 5 October 2016 an administrative investigation was started against him on the grounds that he had telephone contacts with persons that were allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY. Within the scope of this investigation, the applicant gave his statements explaining those telephone contacts. He stated that one of those three persons in question was his sister and that he had spoken with her on the telephone regarding his father’s health. He further claimed that he had spoken with the second person for professional purposes and that he did not recall any contact with the third person.
Following the investigation, a report was prepared concluding that the applicant’s continued service as Director of Administrative Affairs would be objectionable (sakıncalı), having regard to his contacts with persons affiliated with FETÖ/PDY and the reliability requirement of the position. On the basis of that report, the applicant was demoted to the position of “chef” at the Governor’s Office of Bilecik province.
On 28 December 2017 the administrative court dismissed a case brought by the applicant challenging his transfer and demotion holding that the applicant’s belonging, affiliation, or links (aidiyeti, iltisakı veya irtibatı) to the FETÖ/PDY had not been established; however, he had contacted with persons affiliated with FETÖ/PDY.
On 21 June 2018 the regional court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
On 29 November 2018 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints, inter alia, under Article 8 inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of the available remedies.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about his demotion and transfer on account of his telephone contacts with the persons affiliated with FETÖ/PDY.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Taking into account that the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to challenge his demotion and transfer (see, for the general principles, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 72, 25 March 2014?
2. Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the reasons for the applicant’s demotion and transfer, and the consequences of that demotion and transfer for his private life (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 92-117, 25 September 2018, and Pişkin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, §§ 172-178, 15 December 2020)?
3. In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of his demotion and transfer? Was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Versaci v. Italy, no. 3795/22, §§ 148 -158, 15 May 2025; Pişkin, cited above, §§ 201-229; Sodan v. Turkey, no. 18650/05, §§ 43-44, 2 February 2016; and Naidin v. Romania, no. 38162/07, § 54, 21 October 2014)?