SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44530/11
Satılmış KORKMAZ against Turkey
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Ksenija Turković, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications listed in the appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants’ details are set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. At the material time, the applicants were all military officials.
4. On various dates, the military supervisors of the applicants imposed administrative restrictions on them as disciplinary sanctions. These respective sentences were all enforced. The details of the applications appear in the table below.
B. Relevant domestic law
5. Section 38 of Law No. 477 regarding administrative restrictions provided as follows:
"Concerning commissioned and non-commissioned officers, civilian staff members, gendarmerie, corporals and sergeants who are military specialists:
I. During administrative restriction:
- They continue to perform their duties in office, barracks, training centres and other places;
- They cannot go anywhere after performing their official duties. They stay in the barracks or in another official place;
- They cannot receive any visitors other than professional visitors."
6. Section 21 (3) of Law No. 1602, applicable at the material time, regarding the Supreme Military Administrative Court provided as follows:
"... disciplinary sanctions imposed by supervisors for infringements of military discipline are outside any judicial review.”
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention that the disciplinary penalties imposed on them – administrative restrictions – were ordered by their military superiors and not by an independent and impartial tribunal.
THE LAW
8. The applicants complained about the respective administrative restrictions imposed on them as a disciplinary penalty by their military superiors. They claimed that the penalties constituted a violation of their right to liberty and security guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention since they were not ordered by an independent and impartial tribunal.
9. The Government contested the allegations.
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
11. In its decision in the case of Gül v. Turkey ((dec.) no. 74161/11, 10 July 2012), the Court found that the administrative restriction imposed on the applicant by his military superior for one day did not constitute a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention. The Court indicated that although confined during off-duty hours to their dwellings or to military buildings or premises, as the case may be, servicemen subjected to such a penalty were not locked up and continued to perform their duties and they remained, more or less, within the ordinary framework of their army life (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 61 and 62, Series A no. 22).
12. The Court sees no reason to depart from its considerations in the aforementioned decision in the present cases. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the administrative restriction imposed on the applicants did not pose a problem under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
13. Accordingly, the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Joins the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 February 2016.
Abel CamposKsenija Turković
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Notes
44530/11
27/06/2011
Satılmış KORKMAZ
04/01/1970
Muş
Mehmet Emin ŞEN
On 23 April 2011 an administrative restriction was imposed on the applicant for 7 days. It was executed between 25 April and 2 May 2011.
54483/11
29/06/2011
Y. D.
Hüseyin Ali ÜSTÜNDAĞ
On 23 May 2011 an administrative restriction was imposed on the applicant for 7 days. It was executed between 24 and 31 May 2011.
54487/11
29/06/2011
H.K.
Hüseyin Ali ÜSTÜNDAĞ
On 11 April 2011 an administrative restriction was imposed on the applicant for 2 days. It was executed between 18 and 20 April 2011.
55080/11
09/08/2011
Mustafa Çağlar ÇİMELEK
01/04/1976
Hatay
Serdar ÇALKAN
On 12 April 2011 an administrative restriction was imposed on the applicant for 2 days. It was executed between 13 and 15 April 2011. On 13 May 2011 a further administrative restriction was imposed on the applicant for 14 days. It was executed between 18 May and 1 June 2011.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy