Published on 5 December 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 16418/21
Nagihan KILIÇ against Türkiye
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 15 November 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the refusal of the authorities to appoint the applicants, who fulfilled all the formal conditions, to public service on account of a negative security clearance. All applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of their right to a fair trial on account of the alleged failure of the administrative courts to carry out an effective judicial review. As the information and the accusations contained in the security clearance documents were not disclosed to them, they argue that they were unable to contest their veracity in the course of the administrative proceedings and that the court decisions did not contain relevant and sufficient legal reasons.
The applicants in applications nos. 16418/21 and 58798/21 further complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their membership in lawful associations and/or participation in the lawful activities organised by those associations were partially taken as a basis for the issuance of a negative security clearance and confirmed by the domestic courts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
COMMON QUESTION
In the light of the principles established in Pişkin v. Turkey (no. 33399/18, §§ 120-153, 15 December 2020), did the domestic courts carry out an effective judicial review of the refusal to appoint the applicants to civil service in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principle of equality of arms, the right to an adversarial hearing and the right to a reasoned judgment respected in the impugned proceedings?
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 16418/21 and 58798/21
Did the domestic authorities’ reliance on the applicants’ past memberships and/or activities in lawful associations in confirming a negative security clearance constitute an interference with the applicants’ freedom association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention (see generally Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I)?
APPENDIX
List of the applications:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
16418/21
Kılıç
v. Türkiye
11/03/2021
Nagihan KILIÇ
1989
Kocaeli
Turkish
Doğan BEKİROĞLU
2.
58798/21
Sünger
v. Türkiye
24/11/2021
Mariye SÜNGER
1989
Batman
Turkish
Mahmut TANRISEVEN
3.
60378/21
Kaya Santo
v. Türkiye
03/12/2021
Sebiha KAYA SANTO
1988
Ağrı
Turkish
Vural KAYA