Published on 21 March 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 62622/15
Güneş KURTOĞLU KARACIK against Turkey
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 3 March 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
A list of applicants, who were members of the judicial profession as judges and prosecutors at the time of events giving rise to the present applications, are set out in the appendix. The applications concern the applicants’ alleged inability to have recourse to judicial review of the decisions of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (became "the Council of Judges and Prosecutors" (HSK) since the constitutional revision of 2017) to transfer them to different judicial districts or to remote cities despite being in the same judicial district.
The applicants complain in substance or invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they did not have access to a court to challenge the HSK’s decision to transfer them. They complain in this respect that the manner in which they were transferred from one location to another in the absence of judicial review is incompatible with the independence of the judiciary and rule of law.
Relying on in substance or invoking Article 8 of the Convention the applicants further complain of the serious consequences suffered by them in their private and family lives as a result of their transfer. Their grievances in this respect can be summarised as follows:
- In application nos. 62622/15, 33659/16, 37816/16 and 37819/16 the applicants complain that their respective children, who were studying at private high schools with full scholarship, had to relocate with them and therefore could no longer pursue their studies at those schools.
- In application nos. 62905/15 and 19536/16, the applicants allege that the impugned transfers disrupted the medical care or the studies of their severely disabled children.
- In application no. 1561/16, the applicant, who was suffering from a serious health condition himself, alleges that the impugned transfer disrupted his treatment and also his family life because his family could not relocate with him on account of the fact his child, recovering from cancer, was following a treatment and his wife was employed in the private sector;
- In application no. 4454/16, the applicant claims that the care of his child, who suffered from a serious illness was adversely affected as a result of his impugned transfer.
Finally, the applicants complain in substance or invoking Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that their objections regarding respect for their private and family lives were not taken into account by the HSK in the appointment process and the absence of any effective remedy in respect of their Convention complaints.
In respect of Article 6 of the Convention, the applications raise issues similar to those examined in Bilgen v. Turkey (no 1571/07, §§ 69-81 and §§ 91-97, 9 March 2021) and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey (no 76521/12, §§ 36, 76 and §§ 99-102, 9 March 2021).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the principles established in Bilgen v. Turkey (no 1571/07, §§ 69-81 and §§ 91-97, 9 March 2021) and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey (no 76521/12, §§ 36, 76 and §§ 99-102, 9 March 2021) did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, concerning the decisions to transfer them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the facts of the present cases (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 115-117, 25 September 2018)? If so, has there been a breach of the applicants’ rights to private and family life and to an effective remedy guaranteed by Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, in so far as the domestic legal system failed to provide the applicants with adequate judicial protection and an effective domestic remedy in respect of their Convention complaints?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Represented by
1.
62622/15
Kurtoğlu Karacık v. Turkey
10/12/2015
Güneş Kurtoğlu Karacık
1972
Ankara
2.
62905/15
Kaya v. Turkey
08/12/2015
Tayfun Kaya
1973
İzmir
3.
1561/16
Yılmaz v. Turkey
21/12/2015
Namık Yılmaz
1967
Bursa
4.
4454/16
Doğru v. Turkey
21/12/2015
Adem Doğru
1971
Malatya
5.
19536/16
Özcan v. Turkey
22/03/2016
Neyzen Özcan
1966
Konya
Zeynep Büşra Özcan Konakcı
6.
33659/16
Karacık v. Turkey
03/11/2015
İbrahim Karacık
1971
Ankara
7.
37816/16
Can v. Turkey
15/06/2016
Nalan Can
1974
Denizli
8.
37819/16
Can v. Turkey
16/06/2016
Hasan Can
1970
Kilis