Published on 23 August 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 61590/19
Daham ONAT against Turkey
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 3 August 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the termination of the applicants’ employment contracts on account of their alleged links with a terrorist organisation on the basis of the simplified dismissal procedure as set out in the emergency legislative decree no. 667. During the judicial review process, the labour courts relied on the applicants’ (i) previous convictions (in applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20, 29988/20); or (ii) previous investigations which did not lead to prosecution or a final conviction (in applications nos. 61590/19, 23504/20, 23505/20, 25016/20, 26550/20, 27873/20, 29728/20); (iii) and in some cases, acquittals (applications nos. 23786/20 and 23968/20) as relevant grounds for the termination of an employment contract under decree no. 667.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review before the domestic courts.
The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 26550/20, further complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged stigmatisation brought upon them by their dismissal and the irreversible harm their reputation and private lives suffered.
The applicants except for those in applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20 and 29988/20 further complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention of a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of the absence of a conviction in respect of the criminal proceedings relied upon by the labour courts which took place prior to the failed coup of 15 July 2016.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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 applicants’ dismissals in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In respect of applications nos. 23459/20, 23503/20, 24081/20, 25177/20, 26340/20, 29988/20, where the labour courts found those applicants’ previous convictions to be relevant, did they give sufficient and pertinent reasons as to how that aspect – known and not objected by the employer at the time of entry into employment – could be accepted as grounds for dismissal in the absence of other factual elements?
2. In respect of applications nos. 23786/20 and 23968/20, having regard to the absence of other factual elements relevant at the time of the termination of the contract, did the domestic courts breach the applicants’ established innocence vis-à-vis the previous criminal proceedings relied on by the labour courts in respect of which the applicants had been acquitted (see, inter alia, Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 124‑126 ECHR 2013)?
3. In respect of applications nos. 61590/19, 23504/20, 23505/20, 25016/20, 26550/20, 27873/20, 29728/20, having regard to the absence of other factual elements relevant at the time of the termination of the contract, did the domestic courts breach the applicants’ right to presumption of innocence given the fact that the previous investigations which predated the failed coup of 15 July 2016 had ended with a result other than a conviction (see Allen, cited above, § 94) ?
4. Finally, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants except for the applicant in application no. 26550/20 (see Pişkin, cited above, §§ 216-229)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Represented by
1.
61590/19
Onat v. Turkey
15/11/2019
Daham ONAT
1977
Van
Deniz IŞIK
2.
23459/20
Daş v. Turkey
15/05/2020
Şeyhmus DAŞ
1982
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
3.
23503/20
Darğın v. Turkey
03/06/2020
Mehmet DARĞIN
1982
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
4.
23504/20
Duymak v. Turkey
03/06/2020
Muhittin DUYMAK
1963
Şırnak
Mervan Eren GÜL
5.
23505/20
Özoğlu v. Turkey
03/06/2020
Zülküf ÖZOĞLU
1978
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
6.
23786/20
Yıldırım v. Turkey
15/05/2020
Kenan YILDIRIM
1981
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
7.
23968/20
Çalğın v. Turkey
29/05/2020
Hakı ÇALĞIN
1990
Tunceli
Enver Erdal ŞİMŞEK
8.
24081/20
Akyol v. Turkey
29/05/2020
Bedri AKYOL
1963
Tunceli
Enver Erdal ŞİMŞEK
9.
25016/20
Bilen v. Turkey
04/06/2020
Abdullah BİLEN
1992
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
10.
25177/20
Kızıl v. Turkey
05/06/2020
Mehmet KIZIL
1975
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
11.
26340/20
Baran v. Turkey
10/06/2020
Recep BARAN
1964
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
12.
26550/20
İlaslan v. Turkey
11/06/2020
Ahmet İLASLAN
1976
Batman
Merve KURHAN
13.
27873/20
Altuntaş v. Turkey
28/05/2020
Muhittin ALTUNTAŞ
1964
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
14.
29728/20
Bekis v. Turkey
29/06/2020
Abdullah BEKIS
1966
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
15.
29988/20
Kara v. Turkey
29/06/2020
Aziz KARA
1980
Diyarbakır
Mervan Eren GÜL
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy