CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEBD403DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF1484B3B { margin-left:6.39pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; text-transform:none } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB96219A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.5pt; text-align:justify } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s81BC1F86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF KARTAL v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 54699/14)     JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Lack of judicial review of premature termination ex lege, after legislative reform , of a serving judge’s term of office as vice-president of the Inspection Board of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors • Art   6 applicable • Genuine and serious dispute over arguable civil right under domestic law not to have his term of office terminated arbitrarily • Second condition of the Eskelinen test not met since applicant’s exclusion from access to court was not justified on objective grounds in State’s interest • Termination ex lege not compatible with the rule of law and might threaten the independence of the judiciary • No weighty reasons exceptionally justifying absence of judicial review • Very essence of right of access to court impaired   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 26 March 2024   FINAL   23/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kartal v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Saadet Yüksel,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   54699/14) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Adem Kartal (“the applicant”), on 24 July 2014; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 6 §1 of the Convention ; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by Volunteer Jurists , who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The instant case concerns the lack of access to a court for the applicant in connection with the premature and allegedly arbitrary termination of his office as vice-president of the Inspection Board of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors by the entry into effect of a law. The applicant complained of a violation of his right (under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) of access to a court. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Ankara. He was represented by Ms K. Kıldan, a lawyer practising in Antalya. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, the head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     At the time of the events in question, the applicant, who is a judge by profession, occupied the post of vice-president of the Inspection Board of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors ( Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu – “the HSYK)), which was later renamed as the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“the HSK”) following the entry into force of constitutional amendments of 2017. He was appointed to that post on 30 December 2011 by the plenary assembly of the HSYK, which had chosen him from among the judges and prosecutors of the first grade, with his consent and under section 15 of Law no. 6087 on the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (see paragraph 16 below). THE ADOPTION OF law No. 6524 AMENDING LAW NO. 6087 on the HIGH Council of judges and prosecutors, AND the review of ITS constitutionality 5.     On 15 February 2014, the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye adopted Law no. 6524 on amendments to certain laws; published in the Official Gazette of 27 February 2014, this Law set out amendments to Law   no. 6087. The explanatory memorandum to Law no. 6524 explained that the need for certain comprehensive amendments to Law no. 6087 had become apparent, since the restructuring of the HSYK by means of constitutional amendments enacted in 2010, in order to reinforce the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, to eliminate certain problems, and to make the functioning of the judiciary more effective. Law no. 6524 introduced several changes to Law no. 6087 in respect of: the election procedure for membership of the HSYK; the membership of its chambers and their working methods and duties; the lodging of objections against the decisions and proceedings of the chambers; the duties of the plenary assembly of the HSYK; the appointment of the president, secretary ‑ general, deputy secretaries general of the HSYK; the appointment of the president and the vice-presidents of the Inspection Board (“the Inspection Board”); and the appointment of the inspectors and rapporteur judges of the HSYK. Law no. 6524 also set out transitional provisions concerning the terms of office of existing staff working at the HSYK at the time of its entry into force. The explanatory memorandum to the Law stated that these transitional provisions had been introduced in order to avoid uncertainty regarding the date of entry into force of the Law owing to the reorganisation of the structure of the HSYK. Accordingly, section 39 of the Law added provisional section   4 to Law no. 6087; provisional section 4 provided that the terms of office of the secretary-general, deputy general secretaries, president and vice ‑ presidents of the Inspection Board, and the inspectors, the rapporteur judges and administrative staff of the HSYK would end when the Law entered into force. Furthermore, within ten days of the entry into force of this law, either the president, vice-presidents and deputy general secretaries of the Inspection Board were to be reappointed by the president of the HSYK (paragraph 17 below), or new persons were to be appointed to those posts. 6.     A total of 130 members of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye lodged an application with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of Law no. 6524 and requesting the annulment of section 39 of that Law, together with other provisions. 7.     By a judgment rendered on 10 April 2014 (E. 2014/57, K. 2014/81) and published in the Official Gazette on 14 May 2014, the Constitutional Court unanimously held, inter alia , that section 39 of Law no. 6524 was unconstitutional as it breached the principle of legal certainty and annulled the disputed provision. The Constitutional Court decided that, in order to avoid a legal void, the judgment annulling section 39 of Law no. 6524 would enter into force three months after it was published in the Official Gazette. It also considered that the conditions for the suspension of the execution of the annulled provision had not been met. The relevant part of this judgment reads as follows: “In the ... application it is stated: that all officials working at the HSYK (except for the members of the HSYK) have been dismissed; that the authority to determine the new management has been left entirely to the president [of the HSYK]; that the dismissal of the [judges] endowed with [security of tenure] and their replacement [with staff appointed] by the Minister [of Justice] was contrary to the principle of the separation of powers and the rule of law, and [constituted] a clear interference by the executive in the [affairs of] the HSYK, which ... should function according to the [principle of the] independence of the courts and the [security of tenure of judges]; that it is stipulated [by the Constitution] that all staff are to be organised according to the principle of the independence of the courts, without making any distinction between judicial staff and civil servants; that ... the Constitutional Court has found that the termination by law of the duties of public officials working within certain ministries is not unconstitutional, [because] those institutions are classic public institutions and such individuals are persons who do not have the independence and [security of tenure enjoyed by judges] in respect of the executive; that the right of staff (whose duties have been terminated by means of the rule that is the subject of the instant application) to lodge an application for a review of the legality of the termination of their duties has been violated by the restriction of their right to seek justice; that the duties of the members [of the HSYK’s] chambers have been cancelled; that (directly or indirectly) granting authority to the Minister of Justice to take measures concerning the independent courts that exercise judicial power was contrary to ‘judicial authority’ and the principle of the ‘separation of powers’, ...and violated the principle of independence of the courts; and that the rule [that is the subject of the instant application] contravenes to Articles 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 138, 139, 140 and 159 of the Constitution. Provisional section 4 (added to Law no. 6087) states in its first paragraph that the duties of the secretary-general, the deputy secretaries-general, the president ...and the vice-presidents of the Inspection Board, [and] the [duties of the] HSYK inspectors, the rapporteur judges and the administrative staff serving at the HSYK shall be terminated on the date of the entry into force of this Law; in its second paragraph that the president [of the HSYK] shall appoint the president ..., the vice-presidents [of the Inspection Board] and the deputy secretaries-general within ten days of the entry into force of this Law, and that the General Assembly shall determine the candidates for secretary ‑ general [of the HSYK] in accordance with the procedure stipulated by this Law; in its third paragraph that the president shall appoint the secretary-general [of the HSYK] within three days of the nomination of the candidates for secretary-general; in its fourth paragraph that the secretary general, the deputy secretaries-general, the president ... [and] the vice-presidents of the Inspection Board, [and] the HSYK inspectors and the rapporteur judges, whose duties at the HSYK are terminated, shall be appointed to positions deemed appropriate by taking into account their vested interests [ müktesep – that is, their acquired or guaranteed interests]; and in its fifth paragraph that the administrative staff (whose duties at the HSYK have been terminated) shall be appointed by the Ministry of Justice to positions in the central or provincial organisation of the Ministry, in accordance with their vested interests. Paragraph (1) of this section determines the persons whose duties will be terminated on the date that this Law enters into force. Article 159 of the Constitution defines the positions to be [filled by persons] appointed by the HSYK. Accordingly, the authority to appoint the HSYK’s inspectors and the judges and prosecutors to be employed by the HSYK rests with the HSYK. It is clear that the president and the vice-presidents of the Inspection Board must also be appointed by the HSYK under Article 159 of the Constitution. The termination by law of the duties of persons whom the HSYK has the sole authority, under Article 159 of the Constitution, to appoint and whose appointments are made by the HSYK, under this Article [of the Constitution], renders Article 159 of the Constitution inoperative and is contrary to Article 159 of the Constitution in this respect. On the other hand, the principle of legal security, which is one of the requirements of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution, requires rules to be predictable, individuals to have confidence in the State [when carrying out] all their actions and transactions, and the State to avoid methods that undermine this sense of confidence in legal regulations. It is a requirement [stemming from] the principle of legal security that public officials cannot be dismissed from their duties unless there is a justifiable reason for their dismissal. In cases of legal and factual necessity, it is accepted that the removal of public officials from their current positions and their reassignment to another position may be subject to legal regulations. The termination of the duties of public officials working in certain positions in institutions and organisations whose organisational structure has been changed and their appointment to other positions within the scope of the restructuring of public institutions and organisations is an example of [the effect of] legal regulations [that have been] introduced owing to legal and factual necessities. In this case, the reason for the appointment of those concerned to other positions is the reorganisation of the institution or organisation in question – a completely different [situation] from that [pertaining to] the transfer-appointment procedures established by the administration on the basis of the laws in force and taking into account the subjective situation of the public official [concerned]. Owing to the aforementioned legal and factual necessities, [appointing persons] to other positions while preserving the [acquired or guaranteed] rights [of those concerned] is within the discretion of the legislature. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum to [Article 39 of Law no. 6524] that transitional provisions have been introduced in order to avoid uncertainty (due to the reorganisation of the structure of the HSYK) as at the date of the entry into force of the Law; however, when the amendments made to Law no. 6087 by Law no. 6524 are examined as a whole, it is [clear] that there has been no ... change within the structure of the HSYK. Therefore, since it is not possible to talk about legal and factual necessities that require the termination (as a result of structural change) of the duties of public officials serving at the HSYK, terminating the duties of such persons through legal regulations would lead to a violation of the principle of legal security. Paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of [ Article 39 of Law no. 6524] provide the procedures and principles pertaining to appointments [that are] made to fill vacant positions and the appointments [to other positions] of persons whose duties are to be terminated. The unconstitutionality of paragraph (1), which regulates the termination of the offices [of people working at the HSYK], renders paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) (which are based on the regulation in this paragraph, and which constitute the results of this regulation) also unconstitutional. For the reasons explained, paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of provisional Article 4 of Law [no. 6087] are contrary to Articles 2 and 159 of the Constitution. They must be annulled. ...” the Termination of the applicant’s office AT the HSYK by Law no. 6524 8.     Following the entry into force of Law no. 6524 on 27   February 2014, the applicant’s mandate as vice-president of the Inspection Board was terminated in accordance with section 39 of that Law, which added provisional section 4 to Law no. 6087. 9.     On 27 February 2014, a new president and a new vice-president were appointed to the Inspection Board by the president of the HSYK. On 3   March 2023, the plenary assembly of the HSYK reappointed twenty-four out of fifty ‑ nine ex-chief inspectors, thirty-three out of seventy-five ex-inspectors and eighteen out of forty-two ex-rapporteur judges to the positions that they had held at the HSYK before the termination of their respective offices under Law no. 6524. The applicant was not among those persons reappointed to the HSYK. 10.     By a decision of 6 March 2014, the first chamber of the HSYK appointed the applicant as a public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. 11.     Given that under Article 153 of the Constitution decisions of the Constitutional Court cannot be applied retroactively (see paragraph   15 below), the applicant was not reinstated in his position as vice-president of the Inspection Board following the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14   April 2014 annulling section 39 of Law no. 6524 (see paragraph 7 above). 12.     The applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, citing his right of access to a court in order to contest the premature termination by Law no. 6524 of his office within the Inspection Board. On 30   November 2015, the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible as incompatible   ratione materiae   with the provisions of the Constitution, as it did not have jurisdiction to examine legal instruments within the framework of an individual application.   subsequent MEASURES CONCERNING THE APPLICANT 13.     On 16 July 2016, the applicant was suspended from his profession as a magistrate and his office as a prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. On 24   August 2016 he was dismissed from his office under a decision taken by the HSYK within the framework of the measures adopted during the state of emergency declared in the aftermath of an attempted 15 July 2016 coup against the Turkish government. A request that he lodged with the HSYK for decision to be re-examined was rejected on 29 November 2016. 14.     On 31 October 2017, the Erzurum Assize Court convicted the applicant of membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü/Paralel Devlet Yapılanması – hereinafter referred to as “the FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to have been the orchestrator of the above-mentioned coup attempt; the court sentenced him to seven years and six months in prison. Following an appeal by the applicant, this judgment was confirmed by the Court of Cassation on 20   October 2020. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE Constitution 15.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “Article 2 The Republic of Türkiye is a democratic, secular, and social State [that is] governed by the rule of law (and according to the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice), [respects] human rights, [is] loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and [is] based on the fundamental principles set forth in the preamble. ... Article 36 Everyone shall have the right to present and defend himself as a plaintiff or defendant before the judicial authorities and to a fair trial that employs legitimate means and procedures. ... Article 138 In the performance of their duties, judges shall be independent; they shall give judgment, according to their personal conviction, in accordance with the Constitution, statute and the law. No organ, authority, officer, or other person may give orders or instructions to courts or to judges in respect of [those judges’] exercise of their judicial powers, send them circulars or make recommendations or suggestions to them. ...” Article 139 Judges and public prosecutors shall not be removed from office or compelled to retire without their consent before [they reach] the age prescribed by the Constitution; nor shall they be deprived of their salaries, allowances or other rights relating to their status – even as a result of the abolition of a court or post. Article 140 Judges shall discharge their duties in accordance with the principles of the independence of the courts and the security of tenure of judges. The qualifications, appointment, rights and duties, salaries and allowances of judges and public prosecutors, their promotion, any temporary or permanent change in their positions or place of duties, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them and the imposition of disciplinary penalties, the conduct of investigations concerning them and [any] subsequent decision to prosecute them on account of offences committed in connection with (or in the course of) their duties, any conviction for offences or instances of incompetence requiring their dismissal from the profession, their in-service training, and other matters relating to their staff status shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principles of the independence of the courts and the security of tenure of judges. Judges and public prosecutors shall be attached to the Ministry of Justice with respect to their administrative functions. Those judges and public prosecutors working in administrative positions of [departments providing] judicial services shall be subject to the same provisions as [all] other judges and public prosecutors. Their categories and grades shall be determined according to the principles that apply to judges and public prosecutors, and they shall enjoy all the rights accorded to judges and public prosecutors. ... Article 153 The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final. Decisions [annulling laws or decrees that have the force of law] cannot be made public without a written statement of reasons. In the course of annulling the whole, or a provision, of laws (or decrees that have the force of law), the Constitutional Court shall not act as a lawmaker and pass any judgment leading to [the creation of new rules]. Laws, decrees that have the force of law, or the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (or provisions thereof) shall cease to have effect from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the annulment thereof. Alternatively, the Constitutional Court may decide on the date on which the annulment decision shall come into effect. That date shall not be later than one year after the date of the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. In the event of the postponement of the date on which an annulment decision is to come into effect, the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye shall give priority to debating and deciding on any proposed draft ... law designed to fill the legal void arising from the annulment decision. Annulment decisions cannot be applied retroactively. Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be published immediately in the Official Gazette, and shall be binding on the legislative, executive, and judicial organs, on the administrative authorities, and on persons and corporate bodies. ... Article 159 The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors shall be established and shall exercise its functions in accordance with the principles of the independence of the courts and the security of tenure of judges. The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors shall be composed of twenty-two regular and twelve substitute members; it shall comprise three chambers. The president of the Council is the Minister of Justice. The Undersecretary to the Ministry of Justice shall be an ex officio member of the Council. For a term of four years, four regular members of the Council, the [required] qualities of whom are defined by law, shall be appointed by the President of the Republic from among ... teaching staff in the fields of law, economics and political sciences [and from among] high-ranking executives and lawyers; three regular and three substitute members shall be appointed by the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation from among members of the Court of Cassation; two regular and two substitute members shall be appointed by the plenary assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court from among members of the Supreme Administrative Court; one regular and one substitute member shall be appointed by the plenary assembly of the Justice Academy of Türkiye from among its members; seven regular and four substitute members shall be elected by civil judges and public prosecutors from among those who are judges and prosecutors of the first grade and who have not lost the qualifications required for being a judge or prosecutor of the first grade; three regular and two substitute members shall be elected by administrative judges and public prosecutors from among those who are judges and prosecutors of the first grade and who have not lost the qualifications required for being a judge or prosecutor of the first grade. They may be re-elected at the end of their term of office ... In the elections, every member [of the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Justice Academy of Türkiye] shall vote for [persons] to be elected to the High Council by the plenary assemblies of the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Justice Academy of Türkiye and every judge and prosecutor shall vote for the members to be elected to the High Council from among judges and public prosecutors of the first grade working at civil and administrative courts; the candidates receiving the greatest number of votes shall be elected as regular and substitute members, respectively. These elections shall be held once in respect of each term and [shall be conducted] by secret ballot ... The Council shall conduct the proceedings regarding: admission to the profession of judges and public prosecutors of ordinary and administrative courts; appointment [and] transfer to other positions; the delegation of temporary powers; the promotion, and classification [of judges and prosecutors] as “of the first grade”; decisions concerning those whose continuation in the profession is found to be unsuitable; the imposition of disciplinary penalties; and removal from office. The Council shall take final decisions on proposals [made] by the Ministry of Justice concerning the abolition of a court, or changes to the territorial jurisdiction of a court; it shall also exercise the other functions given to it by the Constitution and laws. The supervision of judges and public prosecutors with regard to [i] their performance of their duties in accordance with the laws, regulations, by-laws and circulars (administrative circulars, in the case of judges),[ii] investigations into whether they have committed offences in connection with (or in the course of) their duties, [iii] whether their behaviour and conduct are in conformity with the requirements of their status and duties (and, if necessary, enquiries and investigations concerning them) shall be carried out by the Council’s inspectors, upon the proposal of the related chambers and with the permission of the president of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors. Inquiries and investigations may also be assigned to a judge or public prosecutor who is senior to the judge or public prosecutor to be investigated. Decisions of the Council – other than [a decision to dismiss someone] from the profession – shall not be subject to judicial review. A general secretariat shall be established under the Council. The secretary-general shall be appointed by the president of the Council from three candidates [chosen and proposed by the Council] from the ranks of the judges and public prosecutors of the first grade. The Council shall be empowered to appoint (with their consent) the Council inspectors, [and also] judges and public prosecutors to be temporarily or permanently assigned to the Council ...” Law on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Law no. 6087) 16.     The relevant provisions of Law no. 6087 on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, adopted on 11 December 2010 and published in the Official Gazette on 18 December 2010, as in force at the time, provided as follows: “Section 12 – Rapporteur judges “(1) There are sufficient numbers of rapporteur judges under the general secretariat to be assigned in the Council. (2) Rapporteur judges shall be assigned [with their consent] temporarily or permanently by the plenary assembly [of the HSYK] from among those who have actually served at least five years [as judges] or [as prosecutors] at a prosecutor’s office and who are recognised to be [potentially] useful ... to the Council, given their outstanding achievements. (3) The rapporteur judges shall fulfil the duties assigned to them by the president [of the HSYK], the head of the relevant department and the secretary-general. ... Section 14 – The formation and duties of the [HSYK’s] Inspection Board ... (4) The duties and authorities of the Inspection Board are as follows: a) To inspect whether civil and administrative judiciary judges and prosecutors perform their duties in [a manner that is in] compliance with laws, regulations, by-laws and circulars, and to examine whether they commit offences in connection with or during the exercise of their duties – or whether their behaviour and actions are in compliance with the requirements of their capacities and duties – and if necessary, to initiate examinations or investigations about them. b) to conduct the necessary research and enquiries into the legislative deficiencies and malfunctions in the implementation of relevant matters falling within the scope of its duties and to submit proposals to the Council regarding the judicial and administrative measures to be taken. c) to perform similar duties that are specified in the laws, by-laws, and regulations or assigned by the Council ... Section 15 – Assignment process 1) The members of the Inspection Board shall be appointed with their consent by the plenary assembly [of the HSYK] as follows:   a) The president and the vice-president of the Inspection Board shall be appointed from among judges and prosecutors of the first grade,   b) The chief inspectors of the Council shall be appointed, according to order of seniority, from among those inspectors who have actually completed five years of service with the Inspection Board [of the HSYK], who have been appointed as [judges] of the first grade and who have not lost their qualifications to be appointed as “of the first grade.”   c) The   inspectors of the Council shall be appointed from among those judges and prosecutors who have at least eight years of experience in their profession and who have been proved to provide beneficial services to the Council by virtue of their extraordinary achievements...” ... Section 33 – Re-examination, objection, and judicial remedy (1) The president [of the HSYK] or the persons concerned may lodge a request with the plenary assembly for the re-examination of any decision that has been adopted by the plenary assembly for the first time, within ten days of their being notified of that decision. Decisions taken after a request for re-examination shall be final. (2) The president or the persons concerned may lodge a request with [an HSYK] chamber for the re-examination of a decision rendered by that chamber, within ten days of their being notified that decision. (3) The president and the persons concerned may, within ten days of being notified, lodge an objection with the plenary assembly against decisions rendered by the [HSYK chambers] upon a request for re-examination. Decisions rendered following [the lodging of] objections shall be final. ... (5) Recourse may be had with judicial authorities against final decisions of the plenary assembly and of chambers concerning [a judge’s or prosecutor’s] dismissal from [his or her] post; other decisions shall be beyond judicial review. The Supreme Administrative Court (as a first-instance court) shall hear actions for annulment brought against decisions delivered in respect of [a judge’s or a prosecutor’s] dismissal from [his or her] post. Such actions shall be deemed to be urgent. ... Section 42 – Reassignment (1) The secretary-general, the deputy secretary-general, the rapporteur judges, and the inspectors [serving] in the Council shall be appointed – [either] upon their own request or ex officio – to a post deemed appropriate by the first chamber upon the decision of the plenary assembly, taking into account their [respective] merits.” Law no. 6524 on amendments to certain laws 17.     Section 39 of Law no. 6524 on amendments to certain laws, adopted on 15 February 2014 and published in the Official Gazette on 27   February 2014, as in force at the time, provided: “Section 39 The following provisional articles have been added to Law no. 6087. "PROVISIONAL ARTICLE 4 – (1) The duties of the secretary-general, deputy secretaries-general, president ..., [and] vice-presidents of the Inspection Board, [HSYK] inspectors, rapporteur judges and administrative staff serving in the Council shall be terminated as of the effective date of this Law. (2) Within ten days of the entry into force of this Law; a) The president [of the HSYK] shall appoint the president of the Inspection Board, the vice-presidents of the Inspection Board and deputy general secretaries. b) The plenary assembly shall nominate candidates for secretary-general, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by this Law. (3) Within three days of the designation of candidates for secretary-general, the president [of the HSYK] shall appoint a secretary-general. (4) The secretary-general, deputy secretaries-general, the president ... and the vice-presidents of the Inspection Board, and rapporteur judges whose duties in the Council are terminated shall be appointed to such [positions] as are deemed to be appropriate, taking into account their vested interests. (5) Administrative staff whose duties in the Council are terminated shall be appointed by the Ministry of Justice to positions in the central or provincial organisation of the Ministry that reflect their vested interests. (6) a) All circulars issued by the Council shall cease to be in force on the date of the entry into force of this Law. b) Those provisions of the regulations issued by the Council that are not contrary to this Law shall continue to be applied. ...” Law on Judges and Prosecutors (Law no. 2802) 18.     The provisions of Law no. 2802 on judges and prosecutors, adopted on 24 February 1983 and published in the Official Gazette on 26   February 1983, as in force at the time, provided: “Section 106 An additional payment shall be made to the judicial inspectors at the rate of 5% of their gross monthly salaries, in accordance with section 103 [of Law no. 2802]”. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE 19.     A description of the relevant international law and practice may be found in Grzęda v. Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§120-144, 15 March 2022). THE LAW THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONs 20.     The Government lodged preliminary objections on several grounds. They argued that the applicant did not submit an authority form authorising a lawyer to represent him before the Court, that he had not been a victim of a Convention violation, and that he had failed to exhaust all domestic remedies available to him. Authority Form 21.     The Government alleged that after they had been given notice of the application, the applicant had failed to submit, in accordance with Rule   36 §§   2 and 4 of the Rules of Court, an   authority form   authorising a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 22.     The Court observes that the applicant’s representative submitted a duly completed   authority form   to the Court on 13 November 2011. Consequently, the Court finds no grounds to discontinue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. It therefore rejects the Government’s preliminary objection. Victim status The parties’ submissions (a)    The Government 23.     In support of its objection regarding the applicant’s victim status, the Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, since the Constitutional Court, by virtue of the judgment that it had delivered on 14 April 2014, had annulled section 39 of Law no. 6524, which had added provisional section   4 to Law no. 6087. They argued in this regard that, in the reasoning of its 14   April 2014 judgment, the Constitutional Court had emphasised that the dismissal from their respective offices of persons serving at the HSYK by means of legal instruments, and without any legal or factual necessity, had amounted to a violation of the principle of legal certainty; they further argued that, by virtue of this judgment (even though it could not be applied retroactively), the Constitutional Court had acknowledged, in substance, that a violation of the Convention had occurred. 24.     The Government observed, moreover, that following the entry into force of Law no. 6524, new assignments had been allocated among the staff who had been dismissed from office under that Law; the judges and prosecutors who had been removed from their duties and who had not been reassigned to other positions within the HSYK had been appointed to positions within other organisations in accordance with their acquired or guaranteed rights and taking into account their requests (and the nature of their respective principal professions (as either judges or prosecutors). The Government also specified in this respect that the above-mentioned additional monthly payment (in an amount equivalent to 5% of gross monthly salary) granted to those serving in the position of inspector and chief inspector at the HSYK for the term of their respective offices was not an acquired or guaranteed personal right but was granted by way of compensation for the difficult nature of their duties. Thus, the Government argued that the negative legal effects of the termination of the office of the applicant had been eliminated as a result of the decisions issued by the HSYK. 25.     The Government also argued that even in the event that the applicant’s office had not been terminated by Law no. 6524, the plenary assembly of the HSYK would still have had the power to end his office in the HSYK, given the fact that he had not benefitted from security of tenure in respect of his post as vice-president of the Inspection Board. They further noted that in view of the fact that the plenary assembly of the HSYK had had discretionary power in the matter of appointments, there had been no obligation for it to reappoint the applicant to his post at the HSYK following the judgment of the Constitutional Court by which it had annulled Article 39 of Law no. 6524. 26.     The Government concluded that the application should therefore be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention, because the applicant lacked victim status. (b)    The applicant 27.     The applicant contested the Government’s arguments. He stressed that he had not had any effective remedy in respect of the premature termination by Law no. 6524 of his office at the HSYK. In this regard, he submitted that although the relevant provision of the disputed law had been annulled by the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court’s judgment had not acknowledged any violation of his right of access to a court. He further submitted that his reassignment to another post at his request following the premature termination of his office could not be considered to have constituted any kind of remedy. The Court’s assessment 28.     The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article   34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged (either expressly or in substance) and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no.   1)   [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   179-80, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Gäfgen v.   Germany   [GC], no. 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010; Kurić and Others v.   Slovenia   [GC], no.   26828/06, § 259, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Cristea v.   the Republic of Moldova , no.   35098/12, § 25, 12 February 2019). Only where both these conditions have been satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude an examination of the application (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §   218, 22 December 2020). 29.     The Court observes that section 39 of Law no. 6524, which added provisional section 4 to Law no. 6087, was annulled by the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 14 April 2014; under that judgment, the court’s judges unanimously held that that provision was unconstitutional as it breached the principle of legal certainty. Nevertheless, the judgment of the Constitutional Court did not make an assessment or reach a finding as to the applicant’s grievance relating to his lack of access to a court in respect of the premature termination of his office at the HSYK; in any event, under Article 153 of the Constitution, that judgment did not have retroactive effect (see paragraph   15 above). Thus, by the very nature of the procedure it constituted an abstract constitutional review, and in view of the framework within which it was rendered, it could not be considered that that judgment provided the applicant with a procedure capable of redressing the effects of a possible violation of the Convention. 30.     In so far as the Government argues that (i) the termination by Law   no.   6524 of the office that the applicant held at the HSYK did not have any negative effect on the applicant to the extent that he was appointed (at the applicant’s request, by a decision that the plenary assembly of the HSYK adopted under its discretionary power regarding the matter of appointments) to another post, and (ii) taking into account, as in the case of all other judges and prosecutors whose offices at the HSYK were terminated, his acquired or guaranteed rights, the Court notes that this point is irrelevant to the complaint in issue, which concerns