Published on 11 December 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 34365/22
Esragül GÜRMEN
against Türkiye
lodged on 1 July 2022
communicated on 21 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the unfairness of the proceedings before an administrative court regarding the relevant administration’s rejection of the applicant’s request for allowances and indemnities when she was reinstated in her former position as a teacher after her dismissal by Legislative Decree no. 672 following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was deprived of her right to a fair trial and effective access to a court. She argues that the administrative court rejected her case as being out of time solely based on the administration’s defence to the effect that its rejection of the applicant’s request had been communicated to the applicant on 26 October 2020 and that she had failed to lodge her case within sixty days from that date. She submits that the administrative court’s reliance on this date as dies a quo was arbitrary in so far as the administration, despite being under an obligation to prove their allegation with evidence (such as a receipt of communication), had failed to do so.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts examine all the questions of fact when establishing the dies a quo for the calculation of a time-limit and provide sufficient reasoning as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention so that the applicant had effective access to a court (compare Pişkin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, §§ 130-135, 15 December 2020; and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)? In that connection, is the conclusion of the administrative court in question arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy